HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/07/27
Tuesday, July 27, 1993
6:00 p.m.
"Idllclare under penalty 01 perjury that I ai'll
employed by the CIty of Chura Vista In the
Office of tho Cilj C:1~rk and that I posted
this Agen::.J:.J/i\!oUco en the Bulletin Board at
the Public ervices Building and at City Hall on
DATED. 7:.2-~ 7' SIGNED ~..;(~?" ..
Regular Meetinlr of the City of la Vis a itv Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CAlL TO ORDER
1.
ROLL CAlL;
Councilmembers Fox _, Horton _, Moore _, Rindone _, and Mayor
Nader _
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MlNlITES: July 13, 1993
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Oath of Office:
Appeals and Advisors - Thomas F. Leonard;
Cultural Arts Commission - Larry V. Dumlao;
Cultural Arts Commission - Carlos Gilbert Pelayo;
Design Review Commission - Dan Way;
Library Board of Trustees - Ronald E. Williams;
Economic Development Commission Ex-Officio Sheila Washington;
International Friendship Commission - Luis Alvarez;
Planning Commission - William C. Tuchscher;
Resource Conservation Commission - Barbara Ann Hall;
Resource Conservation Commission - Michael Johnson;
Safety Commission - Stephen C. Padilla.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 12)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be t!IIacted by the
Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councibnember, a member of the publU: or City staff requests
thot the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak Form" available in the lobby aruJ submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form
to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff
recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board aruJ Commission
Recommendations aruJ Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the rust items of business.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter, with attachment, requesting reinstatement of the Senior and Disabled Transportation
Advisory Committee - Carolyn F.J. Butler, 97 Bishop St., Chula Vista, CA 91911. It is
recommended that staff be directed to send Ms. Butler a copy of the staff report and
Ordinance 2543, and, if after review ofthe material, Ms. Butler feels the senior and disabled
community is under represented, staff will calendar her letter for consideration by the
Human Relations Commission.
Agenda
-2-
July 27, 1993
b. Letter requesting support for Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Resolution of
Intention (ROI) - Dan Silver, Coordinator, Endangered Habitats League, S424A Santa
Monica Blvd., #592, Los Angeles, CA. 90069. It is recommended that staff notify the
Endangered Habitats League of the hearing date, and that their concerns will be addressed
in the report prepared for that meeting.
c. Letter urging consideration of approving a no-smoking ordinance - Mayor Dick Lyon, City
of Oceanside, Civic Center, 300 North Hill St., Oceanside, CA. 92054. It is recommended
that the item be referred to staff and the City Attorney for report back to Council.
6. ORDINANCE 2561 REQillRING RECOVERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION FEES
IMPOSED BY SAN DIEGO COUNIY (second readinS[ and adootion) -
Commencing 7/1/92, under the auspices of a new State law, the County
has imposed a booking fee of $176 per criminal defendant arrested by our
police department. While we are protesting the amount of the fee and the
authority to impose same in pending litigation, adoption of the ordinance
would create a means of collecting it from criminal defendants booked
through the system during the pendency of the litigation if it eventually
proves unsuccessful, and would therefore protect our general fund from a
possible large unaccrued liability. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (City Attorney)
7. ORDINANCE 2563 AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION 10.48.050 OF TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE,
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED JJMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS,
EAST "Ii" STREET EAST OF EASTLAKE DRIVE, MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD
AND PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD (second readinS[ and adootion) - East "H"
Street, east of EastLake, is a four lane major arterial. Mount Miguel Road
and Proctor Valley Road are each Class II collector streets. Since the
streets do not have any fronting business or residences, the unposted prima
facia speed limit is 55 mph. Based on recent traffic surveys, including
speed surveys and a study of roadway geometries, and in the interest of
public safety, it is recommended that East "H" Street, east of EastLake Drive
be posted at 45 mph, Mount Miguel Road be posted at 35 mph, and
Proctor Valley Road be posted at 30 mph. Staff recommends Council place
the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
S.A. RESOLUTION 17179 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
WOODLAWN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER AND AUTIiORIZING TIlE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT - On 5/18/93, Council approved
$255,000 of CDBG funds to 22 social service programs and $96,600 for
three community development programs and $53,000 to the Fair Housing
Council and Human Services Council programs. The U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) requires a written agreement
between the City and each sub-recipient of CDBG funds. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development)
B. RESOLUTION 17180 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
SOUTIi COUNIY COUNCIL ON AGING (SHARED HOUSING) AND
AUTIiORIZING TIlE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
C. RESOLUTION 17181 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO AND AUTIiORIZING TIlE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Agenda
-3-
July 27, 1993
D. RESOLUTION 17182 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE <JlY OF CHULA VISTA AND
CENTERFOR WOMEN'S STUDIES AND SERVICES (pROJECT SAFEHOUSE)
AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
E. RESOLUTION 17183 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES (OTAY COMMUNITY CUNlC) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
F. RESOLUTION 17184 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA (EDUCATION ENHANCEMENT)
AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
G. RESOLUTION 17185 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER FOR 1HE DISABLED AND AUTHORIZING
1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
H. RESOLUTION 17186 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
AIDS FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
I. RESOLUTION 17187 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
YWCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICES) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
J. RESOLUTION 17188 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (YMCA FAMILY STRESS CENTER) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
K. RESOLUTION 17189 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA SUNSHINE
COMPANY) AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
L. RESOLUTION 17190 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA SUMMER
DAY CAMP) AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
M. RESOLUTION 17191 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (CHULA VISTA HUMAN SERVICES
COUNCIL) AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
N. RESOLUTION 17192 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES SOUTHERN CAUFORNlAPROJECT HAND}
AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
O. RESOLUTION 17193 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES (SOUTH BAY ADULT DAY HEALTH
CENTER) AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
P. RESOLUTION 17194 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
SENIOR ADULT SERVICES (MEALS ON WHEELS) AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
Agenda
-4-
July 27, 1993
Q. RESOLlJIlON 17195 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
JOBS FOR YOUTH AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
R. RESOLlJIlON 17196 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
SOUlH BAY COMMUM1Y SERVICES (CASA NUESTRA) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
S. RESOLlJIlON 17197 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
SOUTH BAY COMMUM1Y SERVICES (GRAFFITI ERADICATION) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
T. RESOLlJIlON 17198 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
SOUTH BAY COMMUNl1Y SERVICES ONTERVENTION TEAM) AND
AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
U. RESOLlJIlON 17199 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
SOUTH BAY COMMUN11Y SERVICES (COMMUN11Y DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM) AND AUTHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
V. RESOLlJIlON 17200 APPROVING AGREEMENT BE1WEEN 1HE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA AND
MAAC PROJECT (EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM) AND AUlHORIZING
1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
9. RESOLlJIlON 17201 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CIVIC
CENTER BARRIO HOUSING CORPORATION FOR 650 SQUARE FEET OF
LAUDERBACH PARK TO ACCOMMODATE A CHILD CARE FACIIJ1Y OPEN
SPACE REQUIREMENT - In February 1992, the City entered into an
agreement with Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation, a non-profit
developer, for 20 years to build a 28-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third
Avenue (The Park Village Apartments) to provide housing opportunities to
very low income families. The uniqueness of the project, besides providing
housing to low income families, is that the tenants will have access to on-
site child care and off-site job training opportunities for the purpose of
promoting self sufficiency. The child care open space requirement of the
project is in excess of the space currently available at the complex. A small
and remote portion of Lauderbach Park is being requested for lease in
order to resolve the open space requirement. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
10.A. RESOLlJIlON 17202 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
REGARDING CONDITIONS 16, 20, 21, 22, AND 23 AND AUTHORIZING
1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - On 5/9/92, Council approved the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Tract 92-03, Championship Classics I in
EastLake Greens. The final map is before Council for approval. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLlJIlON 17203 APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 92-03, CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF 1HE CI1Y 1HE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDMSION, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF 1HE
CI1Y 1HE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDMSION, AND APPROVING SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR 1HE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY
SAID SUBDMSION, AND AUlHORIZING 1HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
Agenda
.5.
July 27, 1993
11.
REPORT
WORK PROGRAM AND AUTIiORlZATION FOR A SCHOOL IMPACf
MITIGATION STIlDY IN CONJUNCllON WITIi TIiE CHULA VISTA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICf, SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICf AND SOURCE POINT. In mid.1992, Council directed staff to
finalize a work program for the mentioned study with both School Districts
and return with a final work program for Council action. Staff has since
worked with the Districts and Source Point to reach consensus on the final
program, which is being presented for Council consideration. Staff
recommends that the item be continued for aooroximateIv four weeks.
(Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 7120/93.
12.
REPORT
OTAY CORPORATE CENTER NORTIi PROJECf . On 3/23/93, Council
authorized staff to transmit a letter stating the City's concerns regarding a
proposed development project in Otay Mesa known as "Otay Corporate
Center North." Subsequently, staff received a copy of the City Manager's
Report, which recommended a six-month continuance of the project, due
to trans border airport issues. The repott is intended to provide Council
with an update. It is recommended that Council accept the report and
provide staff with additional comments and/or direction, if deemed
necessary, prior to the scheduled San Diego City Council hearing for the
project on 7/27/93. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting
of 7/20/93.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOUmONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as pubIU: hearings as required by law. If you wish to gpeak
to any item, pkase fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendntinn; complete the pink form
to gpeak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual
13.
PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF RATE INCREASE FOR COIJ.ECllON AND DISPOSAL
OF REFUSE - The County of San Diego recently increased landfill fees,
thereby necessitating an increase in the refuse collection and disposal rates.
Laidlaw is requesting such an increase effective 7/1/93. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Administration)
RESoumON 17204 APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR COIJ.ECllON AND DISPOSAL OF
REFUSE EFFECI1VE JULY 1, 1993
14.A. PUBUC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM PRE-SR-l25
DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEE AND CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION
OF TIiE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEE . On
8/20/91, Council approved a contract with Howard Needles Tammen and
Bergendoff (HNTB) for professional services in preparing a report which
would analyze future transportation needs in Chula Vista and help staff
develop contingency plans in the event that SR.125 is not constructed in
a timely fashion. HNTB has completed the report which contains a
Agenda
.6.
July 27, 1993
recommended roadway system, and a recommended financing plan as well
as providing background and discussion of issues considered in developing
the proposal. Staff recommends Council continue the public hearing to
8/17/93 or schedule a Worksession/Meeting for 8/26/93 and receive the
report and direct the preparation of a final Council policy on development
monitoring for consideration along with the final action on the Interim SR.
125 Plan. (Director of Public Works)
B.
REPORT
DEVELOPMENT FORECASf AND DEVELOPMENT MONITORlNG POUCJES
This report does not require a public hearinl! but is a related item.
(Director of Planning)
15.
PUBUC HEARING
WAIVER OF ASSESSMENTS AND FEES ASSOCIATED WIlH
DEVELOPMENT OF EASTI.AKE COMMUNl1Y CHURCH The
Redevelopment Agency purchased the former property owned by Chula
Vista Missionary Church on Orange Avenue in order to construct a new
library. The church is requesting waiver of fees associated with
development of a new church in EastLake. In addition, the land has
assessments which were levied under Assessment Districts 88-1 and 85-2.
EastLake Community Church is requesting waiver of those assessments as
well. Staff recommends Council accept the report and deny waiver of any
fees. (Director of Public Works, Director of Planning, and Director of
Community Development)
REPORT
RESPONDING TO A LETTER RECEIVED BY COUNCIL ON JULY 13, 1993,
CONCERNlNG 1HE WAIVER OF ASSESSMENTS AND FEES ASSOCIATED
WlTH DEVELOPMENT OF EASTLAKE COMMUNl1Y CHURCH
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general publU: to address the CiJy Council on any subject matter within the Council's
jurisdiction tIult is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the CiJy Cowu:il from
taking action on any issues not incluikd on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a
subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communimtions Form" available in the lobby
and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. T7wse who wish to speak, please give your name and address
for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This is the time the CiJy Council will consider items which hove been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the CiJy's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elU:it substantiol discussions and deliberations by the
Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the a1tenuJtive. Those who wish to speak, please fill out
a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the CiJy Clerk prior to the meeting. PublU:
comments are limited to five minutes.
Agenda
-7-
July 27, 1993
16. RESOLlYIlON 1nOS AMENDING RESOLlYIlON NUMBER 16708 TO APPROVE AN AMENDED
FORM OF BOND INDENTURE PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS
IN ASSESSMENf DISfRlCf NUMBER 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) - On
6/23/93, Council approved the formation of the Assessment District for the
widening of Otay Valley Road. On 6/30/92, Council adopted Resolution
Number 16708 authorizing the issuance of bonds, approving the form of
the bond indenture and related documents (the "Resolution of Issuance").
On 7/12/93, the City's Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series A,
Assessment District 90-2 were offered to prospective investors for the first
time. However, the underwriting effort was met with resistance from
investors due to greater than ordinary risks associated with the Assessment
District. Concerns were mostly focused upon the Otay Rio Business Park,
comprising over 197 accessible acres and its continued ability to make
assessment installment payments. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Community Development, Director of Finance and
Director of Public Works)
17. REPORT CONSULTANT SELECIlON PROCESS FOR GREG ROGERS PARK
IMPROVEMENf PLAN - On 3/2/93, Council directed staff to return with
a report which would address Council's concern on the Request For
Proposal (RFP) process used to select a design consultant for the Greg
Rogers Park Improvement Project. Staff recommends Council accept the
report. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Continued from the meeting of
7/20/93.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the CiJy Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendm. Agenda
items pulled at the request of the publi<: will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. PublU:
comments are limited to five mimJtes per individunL
OTHER BUSINESS
18. OTY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
19. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
a. Reconsideration of 1993/94 budget. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
b. Cox Cable adult channel. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
Agenda
-8-
July 27, 1993
20. COUNOL COMMENTS
Councilman Fox
a. Review of Police Department policy regarding minor narcotic law violations on school
campuses. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
b. Reconsideration of three requests for reclassification that were frozen at the 7/13/93
Council meeting:
. Senior Accounting Assistant to Collection Supervisor in the Finance Department.
. Administrative Analyst II to a Senior Management Analyst in the Management and
Information Services Department.
. Associate Planner to Senior Planner in the Planning Department.
Councilman Moore
c. Reconsideration of Solid Waste Management Agreement and eligibility to serve on Interim
Commission by listing areas of concern as understandings versus conditions and that the
various City's items of understanding to be among the first order of business of the
Commission. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
d. Letters to Mayors of Imperial Beach, National City, and City of San Diego regarding Eighth
District area and County Board of Supervisors regarding First District south of SR-54 urging
them to join Chula Vista in a unified effort regarding a basic divergence program and a
follow-up meeting with Presiding Juvenile Judge Pate, Probation Department, and District
Atrorney's Office. Goal is to agree upon a minimum offer/court fine of thirty days of
community service with parent presence for fifty per cent of the service when youths are
apprehended in acts of graffiti application. Continued from the meeting of 7120/93.
Councilman Rindone
e. Evaluation criteria for City Manager and format. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will meet in a closed session immediately following the Council meeting to discuss:
Instructions to negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - Chula Vista Employees
Association (CVEA) , Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) ,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) , Executive Management, Mid-Management, and
Unrepresented. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - City of Chula Vista vs. County
of San Diego regarding booking fees. Continued from the meeting of 7/20/93.
Evaluation of City Manager pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. Continued from the
meeting of 7/20/93.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - Jones Intercable. Continued
from the meeting of 7/20/93.
The meeting will recess (to a closed session and thence) be continued to Wednesday, July 28, 1993 at 8:00
a.m. at the County Administration Center and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 3, 1993
at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the
City Council meeting.
July 22, 1993
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~<
City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993
TO:
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, July 27, 1993. Comments regarding the Written Communications
are as follows:
5a. This is a request to reinstate the "Senior and Disabled Transportation
Advisory Committee" which was abolished by the City Council at the
February 23, 1993 meeting. The committee was dissolved due to the
dissolution of SCOOT. The functions that the Committee had were
transferred to the Human Relations Commission by Ordinance 2543 (copy
attached). It appears that the concerns expressed by Ms. Butler are much
broader than would be dealt with by a "Transportation Commission". IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO SEND MS. BULTER A COPY OF THE STAFF
REPORT AND ORDINANCE 2543, AND, IF AFTER REVIEW OF THIS MATERIAL, MS.
BUTLER FEELS THE SENIOR AND DISABLED COMMUNITY IS UNDER REPRESENTED, STAFF
WILL CALENDAR HER LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HUMAN RELATIONS
COMMISSION.
5b. This is a letter from the Endangered Habitats League requesting support
for the Multiple Species Conservation Program's "Resolution of Intention"
(ROI) The City Council has previously directed staff to schedule a public
hearing regarding the proposed Clean Water Program Multiple Species
Conservation Program ROI. This hearing is tentatively scheduled for
August 24 and IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF NOTIFY THE ENDANGERED HABITATS
LEAGUE OF THE HEARING DATE, AND THAT THEIR CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN
THE REPORT PREPARED FOR THAT MEETING.
5c. This is a letter from the City of Oceanside urging consideration of a no-
smoking ordinance. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS ITEM BE REFERRED TO STAFF
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.
JDG:mab
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ~ :0~J
TULLf N)/?93
RECEIVED
7D +h'-f?... IYl A-L{ 0 fC.. '93 JL 15 All :33
m<e.. ctfu C:ouflJeiL pelCSaiVS)
I CITY OF CHULA v::';.:'
Th e- L i +~ 0 4'-- c- h u L ~lWC~ gFF@1l4 L L (: 0 R-t<.J l Ii-
'(1910
:t CARoLLfY\J 1='~N~c-eS C :)oNes.) Bu+LetJi::
lUll f=erR.W\A-LL'-( ((e-~ue...s.f-liv7 f{/tf th-e- S-elA./IOIC.-
f>d ~ b _CdLj LO fV1 m'l '5 5 La tV 1 L R.e U/r) S+I4-+--ec!....
to (C Ph 'e. C-j e f-l- e- ({ q '7 .3 - I 99 Lf) ,/h PT -/- / +
lJ<.elYi fH'l{) I~ t="OR-c:.<- foR. th-e.. Lfel4R... +0 COWIe... (1'1-'13-
flV-diFFel1Jl1&J. W<..R..-/I orc-e...It@.f2.tJop o.t-peeso-t<Js
wz+~ Cee-f-f}{KJ NE-~dS /JIVe!- UNcl'Gf/2.. s-l-;j-<<Jc!~)ltP'j3 0+
6kl'e- AvooHveFL . WhA+ I Yvlel'+~ .hL[1/"-e.. 5ei1J+eHY!.~
A na-if'E'.- C /5/'lJueJ fh ce. S~vu ZoR--S cg v,' L-e- -Ii? <€- Lf OUIV<j elC
dt5.r-rbiLei. fe~scrt1.JS I'W th-e.. C~I'YJ(flUify - /he.t-j
~~-e..ptT/c"e USe... +6 i-kLp (')oIGSd-veS . /J-I- th.-e.. :JA/1'L-€-
+t.ivI~ t-h'Z- ~ o-uvvcy 'e Lie c1 is A h L -e J He... L {O {-h 42..,
S-ei'L7tot2..S ~dJ uS f +0 cJ-1.14tuieS vuif1 -/fO +h~
Co Wl/nUlVi+- L( 0 J- c..-~u Lt4 ViS i-v+ , tit 'G t:Uf-VIC e
COMI-11'{ 5 SLOW We..... W oufc{ L (- k. e +0 3e -e.. ;4 /))Uf1-1.bee.
o fee.sOkJs R e p R. s esetV+ IN 7 dt' F P eY? elU.r- Le~~L ~
G> f dc's I't-locLd'~-5> J f4. f- -th'--€- S 14m-€.- hi--M-€.. DU!C
5'(: V\.J1. trVCS 'iZ e p (\ e. 5 e vtJ~ (~'7 cL F" t== l! ~ e tV +, ~ I't Q.../- 5 o.(l
~~ Q.i1"~ Q~ el\Jllc\ VlS.-t-A.
~c"f~?~~ ~~/
.8!L/5C~~
4-,~ !;3~
H;MC)I/'1E'NJ )
~
RECEIVED du4- /1./.; /9'13
'93 JL 15 Al1 33
-10 t:I...-.e.- /h a-; en.., " CITY OF CHULA J\Si A
/0 t:i.L Cdy l?~~~TY CLERK'S OFFiCE
~.; :L-u..- /nUL. i J ~ ~ ~ JJ--
lVtUJ4n..Lf ~~? ~d ~~-
~~M ~ cd; I'vI ~ (/J&<J ( ~ ~
f~)/ T- ~ ~f
_ ~~J~~) -i40 wI5
W~~-~ .-/
~ ~~~. ~ fu!: .;dud;- tJ~
~~ ~~~) ~~q
otc1dw!J~. JJ~ .JJ~~
w~ t.Lu ~eu-0 /?~~ ? _____ . - -:-,)
t1J~/~ fi7U( ~.
!J~ iJaJV/tJaa-J~~
cnU~ .
~~j 1i~ .tiJMtffUJ~
phdw~.
f)~) ~ JJu) i Wrri ~ t.
('( ,j . I ~
~q~~, $3uih~
~.,~
~-~)ieL( :z CO; I ~9 3
T ~'-C.- ':- !;} :2 s~
/i; ~ /ncu .YU
70 tJi.L 24 &~ " &4 C3 daiJa/ I/cdh;
W-L ~ ~r C~-G ~cL-
izeL)~' ~ 1e) t:~_> vC~
eiuie (i ~ cv ()~ ) (~~LtM.4~/ 9191Q~
~_ ~yZ<L~i c1a,~'XD -,JJ{:VL9~ ~
~~<-&-'2..- .a/,,~ f) {_44:-bL~L C.r7:rLif/z..~
J~~~-:'- " ~(YL'~ fc.LLur:v't,nCf
J Ua.a.o-rz-.<L) )
/~ .~ ~~ ~i,- d~.
~~~L ./rurL<-) to ~ , Ll-) U!;/~
-
d~ ~a-b'~~Jd.
:? / d/2e-- 4~~~ --Aa-6"<~ ~ fal:tu~
~ Ju4 ~ ~~~ (~ Co
cJ1Cl/n?4J " .
Q Fi. P ~ ~:Tn....') u.,<;->kO ~. ,.c.../LL L.~1...JLj!-
~uL /2-<-~)- ck;d~ 0v ~ ~/I""
~~,. .'
:3.. ~ ,~v:J cut~ ~ &/y~~
6J:b;m rf -tv 0' (}~~ ~ CV2/ GU
~., -..../0--
11/, '. -I+,L
'v u!J?:-, U/c~ ". I
/ ~ t~~ /J~ :~A:-l ~C) " "
/ c) cAx-- 0-12/ C C-C4/Y'~~ )
~!~ Ccuze~ ~ ~ 'S, &0ie<-) J; cW-)
c_-l1 {Gel J2.Q.e-~~.~ J2~JC.~:rtA:~..5L- Lu J.L cIuu
Ih{Ana.4c../' l?-ei~.o-rv.:L..I (~'?7J..,;7rL.e..J <1L&~ ....
d/(JL U "~/ ~;-[~ U'k~-
,4-JcVJ~ :::t~ /V-f-~ t~ dCL '&~a~
Cf/J1..6;L / &~ ~ ~d~4)~ "
5. 1.)1.-l'~ ~ w U!L ~/~ l:uJ-
. (11\ - / I )
~ '~S0i~ ~ ~J.J
/J /) 1 L d, - +' 0<
~ / -LJ ac.L L.;-L. ~....
W~ Wa~ to fYj24r~\ J lLt'J-'i cia, r~ ~
ClL?..J2.- / ~I ~-tlla..),--/G t!:-' .t"CL) ...,th,
. )
~ 1!:~/t:~~ ,',~~:~
~nlJ(;d~f Co iLV ) 'W-X:- -~F tUJUU/LZ..o
0111 1rY1-~1 in ~9-cu l
6).-10 C-y2-L fl'/~,~ to ~ inu~n ku/U1-'-;
~cY-vva..] cei cJ.._u.Pav 'V/(d-fiu ~ c-c:J0. ~ w'JLo
~c'eVYt.J 4:J ~ ~ r1 dJcv (/~fcu J
Un~a~ t/-t-uL) ~....
(f~ I ~~ U4/ ~ ~~~
j)~. j (j-u./G ~'-/-r2/rru.~.e""l'U 13 CLce-
IR I.' e ;'/1) S' T )1 -l e \ ,.----- - L-/-
V. T.J -.:::> 4.., (
Plt~~ k5evel't))
W €- --j h '€- S e VD j 0 R c; A IV d t h '<L D i S A h Le d. 0 ~
- --... - ~
LhoLrt V"STAJ CA LitOR.V\JIA } W'Aru.f CJuR.
Co m mi 5 S /010
ReiY1Js-f-A-fed. . $tfTR+"M)'l
TuLy d7J /993
{ 0
. ,
(nJAWle.)
(Add fes 5/2;'p cole)
(g h (j It) €-J
I,
;(,
3,
l{,
~.
to,
7,
g,
g,
lD,
U.
l;l, ,
l3,
t~ ,
15.
UP'
--- ,.----'
.~ Ot/ -~
Y JUcD.-J:Jvu w-f1,o S Uff<9~ ~ ~
ai. -~ fujnuY~ ~ ~\...0 ~J..v-eL"
Jjn 0-<lLlL J-~~) UJJL.- ~ ~
CLn.d ~~. ~ct- OV../u Ci7YUJn/-
Ufl~~" bUh--..J v-~'-';.t~~' C-tJ-
rfO~2Jc<.,J- t ~ vt4' ci (~cv ~~CL\.
. Penk>r.Dr~. ~.
j 5.D
~.::< ' SD
J
3 0
4
~
~
'7
Q
9
i()
/1
'r
/..L...
,~
J:j
;c;
I S./
/&
,s ~0
-- a.---
Dan Silver . Coordinator
8424A Santa Monica Blvd. #592
Los Angeles, CA 90069
TEL/FAX 213 . 654 . 1456
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to the Protectian of Coastal Sage Scmb and OtheT Threatened ECllsysrems
The Honorable Tim Nader. Mayor
and Members of the City Council
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista. CA 91910
nQ .d
=::4-4 Q
-< -< ::0
nO "" ITI
r-'" ,.. .....
me") "
::::0........ .... m
~c 0\ -
V'l r- <
<;;;;: a ITI
'T\Vi ~ C
RE: Support for Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) ResolutiolM>pntenUbn (ROI)
July 12, 1993
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
Our organization is an alliance of conservation groups and individuals dedicated to
ecosystem protection and cooperative solutions which reconcile environment and development.
We are privileged to serve on the MSCP Working Group. Due to the rapid progress which has
been made, the MSCP study area is now far ahead of the rest of Southern California in preparing
to meet the federal mandate now in effect for the California Gnatcatcher, recently listed under the
Endangered Species Act.
If the program is to advance further, however, there must be an assurance of continued
participation by the local jurisdictions. and a clear understanding of their vital roles and
responsibilities in making the process work. It is these roles and responsibilities which are detailed
in the Resolution of Intention (ROI).
Contrary to letters from the development industry, the ROI does not set forth policy options
or plan alternatives for your consideration. When these are available in early 1994, public hearings
would be appropriate. but would now be premature. After approving the ROI within the Working
Group. the industry's current opposition is simply a ploy to gain leverage over the process. We
hope you will not be a party to this manipulation.
We are impressed by the MSCP's early integration of land use planning, biology,
economics, and the protection of private property rights. Within the forum of the Working Group,
these issues are being effectively addressed. The MSCP is also structured to give local
governments autonomy and flexibility in drawing final reserve boundaries.
Unless the MSCP is successful, the near future is sure to bring a succession of disruptive
endangered species listings which go far beyond the gnatcatcher. In order to gain the short and
long-term economic benefits of a multiple species plan, we must not delay. Your continued
productive participation in the MSCP process, as contained in the ROI. is essential.
We urge your approval of this excellent document. Thank you for considering our views.
Le.'
With best regards,
"
q ~'I) g;f~~
~ - '~0~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
d~ . . 5h"j ~ )0~9J
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MEMBERS
*San Diego area groups
Friends of the Tecate Cypress
The Environmental Trust*
Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance
Friends of the Santa Margarita River*
Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley
The Irvine Conservancy
Southwestern Herpetologists Society*
Back Country Land Trust*
Alpine Land Conservancy*
Stop Polluting Our Newport
Save the Headlands
Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation*
Cottonwood Creek Conservancy*
Ecology Cenler of Southern California
Friends of the Hills
Defenders of Wildlife
Orange County Fund for Environmental Defense
Laguna Canyon Conservancy
Mountain Defense League*
Save Our Coastline 2000
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.
Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon*
San Diego Biodiversity Project*
Rural Canyons Conservation Fund
Friends of the Santa Ana River
Tri County Conservation League
San Diego Audubon Society*
Santa Barbara Audubon Society
Laguna Hills Audubon Society
Palomar Audubon Society*
Los Angeles Audubon Society
Buena Vista Audubon Society*
Pomona Valley Audubon Society
Palos Verdes Peninsula Audubon Society
Pasadena Audubon Society
South Coast Audubon Society
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society
El Dorado Audubon Society
San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
Sierra Club San Diego Chapter*
Sierra Club Angeles Chapler
Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
Friends of Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve*
Shoreline Study Cenler*
California Native Plant Society, State Chapler
California Native Plant Society, Orange County Chapter
California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chap1er*
California Native Plant Society, Los Angeles/Santa Monica Chapter
California Native Plant Society, Kern County Chapler
Committee for the Environment (Orange County Bar Assoc.)
San Bernardino Sage Friends
Save Our Forest and Ranchlands*
Friends of the Foothills
Ba1lona Lagoon Marine Preserve
Coastal Conservation Coalition
Pomona Valley Greens
National Opossums, Inc.
Environmental Health Coalition*
Golden State Wildlife Federation
Friends of the Alamos District
5b -02.
f.~1 T ',t
elF
(3 f:~ ~c A- 2'\<< ~:;;; l I.C~ r -"-
_".' ~,..~ It~;; .,' - ~ 1'.<0:',,:0") 1J !.If:;."_,:.;. _ _._-~
MAYOR
DICK LYON
i.~
July 9, 1993
Honorable Tim Nader
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
iiM ~
Dea~'~ IJbuer:
('")(")
~:::::;
-<-<
(.-;>0
.--n
~o
~:::
u)i-.~
.~-,>
~
~
--
\0
::u
/'11
C')
f'T1
<
/'11
o
>
0Cl
(:;;
N
On July 7th, the City of Oceanside's City Council introduced a strong no-smoking
ordinance similar to that already in effect in the cities of Solana Beach and Del Mar.
This action moved San Diego County one step closer to becoming a region that fully
protects the health, safety and well-being of its non-smoking citizens.
Our City Council urges your city to join in this effort and consider approving a similar
ordinance in your community. It is only by acting together and eliminating this health
hazard on a regional basis that we can fully begin to protect our citizens from the
effects of environmental tobacco smoke. All of our citizens patronize establishments
throughout the region. It is for that reason that we believe it is important for your city
to consider implementing an ordinance similar to ours.
I have enclosed a copy of our ordinance for your review, and I would be pleased if you
would contact me if there is any way I could provide additional information or support
that could assist you. I believe we are on the cutting edge of a movement supported
by the vast majority of our citizens who wish to see our region, our state and then our
nation become a place where smoking is prohibited in public places and when we will
all be able, truly, to breathe free.
Cordially,
~
Dick Lyon
cc:~
CIVIC CENTER ~D~'
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION~i
(II) ~11 ~7')
-
.5c ,,/
:TREET. OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 . TELEPHONE 618-966-4401 . FAX61 9-966-4436
1
ORDINANCE NO.
4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE
AMENDING CHAPTER lOA OF THE OCEANSIDE CITY
CODE TO STRENGTHEN THE RESTRICTIONS ON
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC
2
3
5
WHEREAS, the U. S. Environmental Protection agency has
6 determined that tobacco smoke is the major contributor of
7 particulate indoor air pollution; and
8
WHEREAS, reliable studies have shown that breathing
9 sidestream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard,
10 in
particular
for
elderly
people,
individuals
with
11 cardiovascular
disease,
and
individuals with
impaired
12 respiratory function; including asthmatics and those with
13 obstructive airway disease: and
14 WHEREAS, health hazards induced by breathing sidestream or
15 secondhand smoke produce heart disease, lung cancer, respiratory
16 infection, decreased exercise tolerance, decreased respiratory
17 function, bronchoconstriction, and bronchospasm; and
18 WHEREAS, non-smokers with allergies, respiratory diseases
19 and those who suffer other ill effects of breathing sidestream
20 or secondhand smoke may experience a loss of job productivity or
21 may be forced to take periodic sick leave because of adverse
22 reactions to same; and
23 WHEREAS, the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or
24 plant, is a danger to health; and
25 WHEREAS, the health care costs and lost productivity
26 incurred by smoking-related disease and death represent a heavy
27 and avoidable financial drain on our community; and
28 WHEREAS, the free distribution of cigarettes and other
1
5(;,,,3
1 tobacco products encourages people to begin smoking and using
2 tobacco products, and temps those who had quit smoking to begin
3 smoking again; and
4 WHEREAS, free distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco
5 products promotes unsightly litter, thereby increasing the costs
6 to
the public in cleaning the streets; and also causes
7 pedestrian traffic congestion; and
8 WHEREAS, the compelling purpose and intent of this division
9 includes the general promotion of the health, safety, and
10 welfare of all people in the community against the health
11 hazards and harmful effects of the use of addictive tobacco
12 products; and
13 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to strengthen the current
14 restrictions on smoking in public places and places open to the
15 public, and on the distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco
16 products.
17 NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council of the city of Oceanside
18 DOES ORDAIN as follows:
19
SECTION 1.
Chapter lOA of the Oceanside City Code is
20 amended to read as follows:
21 Chapter lOA
22 SMOKING AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS
23
Section 10A.1. Definitions.
24
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this
25 Chapter, shall be construed as hereafter set out, unless it is
26 apparent from the context that a different meaning is clearly
27 intended:
28
A.
"Adult Entertainment Establishment" shall mean any
2
.5G " L/
1 nightclub, cabaret or similar commercial establishment which is
2 (1) open only to adults and excludes minors by reason of age and
3 (2) regularly features live performances by dancers or other
4 entertainers who appear in a state of nudity or otherwise expose
5 to public exhibition specified anatomical areas;
6 B. "Area Open to the Public" shall mean any area
7 available to and customarily used by the general public;
8 C. "Bar" shall mean any premise designed, used or
9 intended to be used for the selling or serving of alcoholic
10 beverages to the public for consumption on the premises and
11 shall include that area of a restaurant which is devoted to the
12 serving of alcoholic beverages and in which the service of food
13 may be only incidental to the consumption of such beverages
14 provided that the area is either: (1) completely separated from
15 the remainder of the restaurant by solid partitions or glazing
16 without openings other than doors or doorways, the width of
17 which shall not exceed the minimum exit way width applicable to
18 such bar and restaurant as established by the Uniform Building
19 Code or other applicable building regulations; or (2) the bar
20 and restaurant are provided with a heating, ventilating and air
21 conditioning system (HVAC) designed to exhaust air from the bar
22 to the outside and any recirculated air is filtered through
23 filters designed to remove particulant matter and odors from
24 smoke, and the patrons of the restaurant are not required to
25 pass through the bar in order to enter the restaurant;
26 D. "Distribute" means to give, sell, deliver, issue, or
27 cause or hire any person to give, sell, deliver, dispense, issue
28 or offer to give, sell, deliver, dispense, or issue;
35(, ,5
1
E.
"Employee" means any person who is employed by any
2 employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages
3 or other compensation;
4
F.
"Employer" means any person, partnership, corporation,
5 including municipal corporation or public entities, who employs
6 the services of two or more persons or two or more people
7 conducting business within the establishment;
8
G.
"Enclosed" means closed in by a roof and walls with
9 appropriate openings for ingress and egress;
10
H.
"General Public" shall mean shoppers, customers,
11 patrons, patients, students, clients, and other similar invitees
12 of a commercial enterprise or non-profit entity;
13
1.
"Place of Employment" means any enclosed area under
14 the control of a public or private employer which employees
15 normally frequent during the course of employment, including but
16 not limited to, work areas, employee lounges, conference rooms,
17 and employee cafeterias. Private residences are not places of
18 employment unless it. is used as a child care, day care, health
19 care, or other similar facility. Bars and adult entertainment
20 establishments are not places of employment for the purposes of
21 this chapter.
22
J.
"Restaurant" means any dinner house, coffee shop,
23 cafeteria, luncheonette, soda fountain, fast food service, and
24 other establishment where cooked or otherwise prepared food is
25 sold to the general public for consumption on the premises. The
26 term does not include a cafeteria or lunchroom defined as a
27 "Place of Employment" by Subsection I of this section.
28
K.
"Smoking" means the carrying or holding of lighted
4
-
~ c-I,
1 pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted
2 smoking equipment or the lighting or emitting or exhaling the
3 smoke of a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind;
" L. "Specified Anatomical Areas" mean (1) less than
5 completely and opaquely covered: (a) human genitals, pubic
6 region; (b) buttock; and (c) female breast below a point
7 immediately the top of the areola; and (2) human male genitals
8 in a discernibly turgid state, even in completely and opaquely
9 covered.
10 M. "Sports Arena" means sports pavilions, gymnasiums,
11 health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice
12 rinks, bowling centers, halls, and other similar places where
13 members of the public assemble to engage in physical exercise,
14 participate in athletic competition, or witness sports events;
15 N. "Vending Machine" means an electronic or mechanical
16 device or appliance the operation of which depends upon the
17 insertion of money, whether in coin or paper hill, or other
18 thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a
19 tobacco products and/or tobacco accessories;
20 Section 10A.2. city-owned Facilities.
21 Smoking is prohibited in all buildings, vehicles, or other
22 enclosed areas occupied by city employees, owned or leased by
23 the city, or otherwise operated by the city.
24 section 10A.3. Prohibition of Smoking in Enclosed Places.
25 Smoking is prohibited in the following places within the
26 Ci ty of Oceanside:
27 A. All enclosed areas available to and customarily used
28 by the general public and all businesses patronized by the
Je-?
1 public, including but not limited to, retail stores, the common
2 areas of hotels and motels, pharmacies, banks, shopping malls,
3 and other offices;
4
B.
All restaurants except in a bar. The owner, manager,
5 or operator of the restaurant shall post signs as prescribed by
6 section 10A.6 and remove all ashtrays from tables;
7
c.
Waiting rooms, hallways, wards, and semi-private rooms
8 of health facilities, including, but not limited to, hospitals,
9 clinics, physical therapy facilities, doctors' offices, except
10 that health facilities shall also be subject to the provisions
11 of section 10A.4 regulating smoking in places of employment;
12
D.
Elevators, public restrooms, indoor services lines,
13 buses, taxicabs and other means of public transit under the
14 authority of public entities, and in ticket, boarding, and
15 waiting areas of public transit deport; provided, however, that
16 this prohibition does not prevent the establishment of separate
17 waiting areas for smokers and non-smokers provided that at least
18 sixty (60) percent of a given waiting area shall be designated
19 as a non-smoking area;
20
E.
In public area of museums and galleries;
Theaters, auditoriums, concert facilities and halls
21
F.
22 which are used for motion pictures, stage dramas and musical
23 performances, ballets or other exhibitions, both indoor and
24 outdoor, except when smoking is part of any such production,
25 provided, however, in outdoor facilities, designated smoking
26 areas may be provided which shall be segregated from non-smoking
27 areas. Where seating area is provided in an outdoor facility,
28 no more than forty (40) percent of the total seats of the
6
SG"~
1 facility may be designated as smoking seats. This section shall
2 not be construed to apply to bars which have been issued
3 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 61, 42 or 48
4 licenses and which provide entertainment;
5
G.
Retail food marketing establ ishments,
including
6 grocery stores and supermarkets;
7
H.
Public schools and other public facilities under the
8 control of another public agency, which are available to and
9 customarily used by the general public, to the extent that the
10 same are subject to the jurisdiction of the city;
11
1.
Sports arenas, both indoor and outdoor, and convention
12 halls, except in outdoor sports arenas, designated smoking areas
13 may be provided which shall be segregated from non-smoking
14 areas. Where spectator seating is provided at outdoor arenas,
15 no more than forty (40) percent of the seats shall be designated
16 as smoking seats;
17
J.
Private residences when used as child care, day care,
18 health care, or other similar facilities.
Board and care
19 facilities shall provide smoke free living quarters for non-
20 smoking boarders.
21 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any
22 owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any
23 establishment described in this section may declare that entire
24 establishment as a non-smoking establishment.
25 Section 10A.4. Regulation of Smoking in Places of
26 Employment.
27
A.
Smoking is prohibited in any place of employment,
28 including, but no limited to, open office areas, shared offices
75c-~
1 and private offices occupied by employees performing clerical,
2 technical, administrative or other business or work functions;
3 and, conference and meeting rooms, classrooms, auditoriums,
4 restrooms, medical facilities, hallways, and elevators;
5
B.
The provisions of this Chapter shall be communicated
6 to all employees within three weeks of adoption of the ordinance
7 adopting this Chapter, and at least annually thereafter.
8
C.
In places of employment, employers may provide
9 specific smoking areas for employees provided all of the
10 following conditions are met:
11
(1) The smoking area is provided with a heating,
12 ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system designed such
13 that none of the air from the smoking area will be recirculated
14 into any other areas of the building or office;
15
(2) The smoking area is completely separated from the
16 remainder of the building by solid partitions or glazing without
17 openings other than doors, and all doors leading to the smoking
18 area shall be self-closing. The door shall be provided with a
19 gasket so installed as to provide a seal where the door meets
20 the stop on both sides and across the top;
21
(3) The smoking areas shall maintain a minimum
22 negative pressure of 0.005 inch water column relative to non-
23 smoking areas;
24
(4) The employer shall submit written verification
25 and test results to the city Manager or his/her designee
26 prepared by a licensed mechanical contractor or engineer that
27 the HVAC system has been designed and tested and meets the
28 requirements set forth in subsections (1) through (3) above;
8
fi '/0
1
(5) If the HVAC system is part of a smoke removal
2 system or pressurization system, any modifications to these
3 systems to provide smoking areas will require approval from
4 oceanside Fire Department.
Written verification of this
5 approval shall be provided to the city Manager;
6
(6) If the specific smoking area is an employee break
7 room, lunch room, or other area which may be used by non-smoking
8 employees, then a separate non-smoking break room, lunch room or
9 other area shall be provided of equal or larger size and include
10 at least equal facilities.
11 Section 10A.5. Optional Smoking Areas.
12 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter to the
13 contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the
14 smoking restrictions of this Chapter:
15
A.
private
residences,
except
that
the
smoking
16 restrictions of this Chapter shall apply during normal working
17 hours to any residence used as a place of employment.
18 B. Adult entertainment establishments.
19 C. Bars, except as provided otherwise in this Chapter:
20 D. Hotel and motel rooms rented to guests, provided,
21 however, that each hotel and motel designates not less than
22 fifty (50) percent of their guest rooms as non-smoking rooms and
23 removes ashtrays from these rooms;
24
E.
Restaurants, hotel and motel conference or meeting
25 rooms, and public and private assembly rooms while these places
26 are being used solely for a private function:
27
F.
Retail stores that deal exclusively in the sale of
28 tobacco and smoking paraphernalia.
9
5<:. "II
1 section 10A.6. posting Requirements.
2
A.
"No smoking" signs with letters of not less than one
3 inch in height or the international "No Smoking" symbol
4 (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette
5 enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be
6 clearly, sufficiently, and conspicuously posted in every
7 building or other place where smoking is controlled by this
8 division, but the owner, operator, manager, or other person
9 having control of such building or other place. Where smoking
10 is permitted, a sign shall be placed which warns persons that
11 smoking is permitted in the establishment;
12
B.
Every hotel or motel regulated by this division will
13 have posted at its entrance a sign clearly stating that no-
14 smoking rooms are available.
15
Section 10A.7.
DELETED - DID NOT PASS...
16
17
18
19
20
21
A.
No person, firm, association, or corporation in the
22 business of selling or otherwise distributing cigarettes or
23 other tobacco or smoking products for commercial purposes shall
24 in the course of such business distribute, or direct, authorize,
25 or permit any agent or employee to distribute, (1) any cigarette
26 or other tobacco or smoking product, including any smokeless
27 tobacco product, or (2) coupons, certificates, or other written
28 material which may be redeemed for tobacco products without
10
Sc ., /rJ
1 charge, to any person on any public street or sidewalk or in any
2 public park or playground or on any other public ground or in
3 any pubic building;
4
B.
No agent or employee of any person, firm, association,
5 or corporation in the business of selling or otherwise
6 distributing cigarettes or tobacco or smoking products for
7 commercial purposes shall in the course of such business
8 distribute, (1) any cigarette or product, or (2) coupons,
9 certificates, or other written material which may be redeemed
10 for tobacco products without charge to any person on any public
11 street or sidewalk or in any public park or playground or on any
12 other public ground or in any public building;
13
c.
For purposes of this section, "public ground" and
14 "public building" include sports arenas as defined in section
15 10A.l, and for any entertainment facility whether enclosed or
16 not, except a bar, for which a charge is made for admission,
17 whether publicly or privately owned.
18 section 10A.9. out of Package Sales.
19 No person shall sell or offer for sale cigarettes or
20 smokeless tobacco not in the original packaging provided by the
21 manufacturer.
22 Section 10A.10. Enforcement.
23
A.
Administration of this chapter shall be by the city
24 Manager or his/her designee;
25
26
B.
Any citizen who desires to register a complaint
27 hereunder may initiate enforcement consideration with the city
28 Manager or his/her designee;
11
5G-J:J
1
C.
Any owner, manager, operator, or employer of any
2 establ ishment controlled by this division may inform persons
3 violating this division of the appropriate provisions thereof.
4 section 10A.11. Penalties.
5
A.
Unless otherwise specifically provided to the
6 contrary, the violation of any provision of this Chapter by any
7 person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the
8 use of any premises subject to the restrictions of this section
9 is an offense punishable pursuant to section 1.7 of this Code;
10
B.
It is unlawful for any person to smoke in any areas
11 restricted by the provisions of this section. violations of
12 this section is an offense punishable pursuant to Section 1.7 of
13 this Code.
14 section 10A.12. Nonretaliation.
15 No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or
16 in any manner retaliate against any employee or applicant for
17 employment because such employee or applicant exercises any
18 rights afforded by this division. violation of this section is
19 a misdemeanor punishable according to Section 1.7 of this Code.
20 Section 10A.13. other Applicable Laws.
21 This division shall not be interpreted or construed to
22 permit smoking where it is otherwise restricted by other
23 applicable laws.
24 section 10A.14. Severability.
25 If any provision or clause of this Chapter of the
26 application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be
27 unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of
28 competent juriSdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other
12
5c-11
1 provisions, clauses or applications thereof which can be
2
implemented without
the
invalid provision,
or
clause
3 application, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this
4 ordinance are declared to be severable.
5 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be codified.
6 SECTION 3. The City Clerk of the City of Oceanside is
7 hereby directed to publish this ordinance once within fifteen
8 (15) days after its passage in the Blade-citizen, a newspaper of
9 general circulation published in the city of Oceanside.
10 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
11 force on the thirtieth poth) day from and after its final
.
12 passage.
13 PASSED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED by the city Council
14 of the City of Oceanside, california, this day of
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
19__, by the following vote:
AYES,:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor, City of Oceanside
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City Clerk
24 Q:\RO\SIIOKING.ORD
25
26
27
28
13..5G" )~
\o~
~"
o(5~/ ~~ #
ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY O!~_~LA VISTA, CI~
REQUIRING RECOVERY OF CRI~AL JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATION FEES IMPOS~~ BY SAN DIEGO
COUNTY ~<vO
The City Council of the City of Chula vista does ordain
as follows:
SECTION I: Government Code S29550.1 authorizes a city to
recover any criminal justice administration fees imposed by a
county on the city pursuant to Government Code S29550i and the
County of San Diego has enacted an ordinance imposing criminal
justice administration fees on the City of Chula vista in the
amount of $154.00 pursuant to the authority of Government Code
S29550.
SECTION II: The City of Chula Vista disputes the amount
of the criminal justice administration fee imposed pursuant to said
ordinance, and has refused to pay said fee, pursuant to the
authority of Government Code S907.
SECTION III: Pursuant to the authority of Government
Code S29550, the City Manager is authorized and directed to recover
all criminal justice administration fees imposed on the City of
Chula vista by the county of San Diego.
SECTION IV: At such time as the dispute between the City
of Chula vista and the county of San Diego as to the amount of the
criminal justice administration fee is resolved, the city Manager
or his designee shall seek recovery of all criminal justice
administration fees as authorized by Government Code S29550.1 from
any person arrested by officers of the city of Chula Vista and
convicted of any criminal offense related to the arrest.
SECTION V: The courts of San Diego County are hereby
requested to order payment in the amount of $154.00 for the
criminal justice administration fees, as authorized by Government
Code S29550.1, by convicted persons at the time of entering
judgment of conviction of any person arrested by officers of the
City of Chula vista. Execution of the order for payment shall be
made in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action.
SECTION VI: The courts of San Diego County are hereby
requested to imposed as a condition of probation in order that the
convicted person reimburse the City of Chula Vista for criminal
justice administration fees imposed on the city of Chula Vista by
San Diego County in the amount of $154.00 as a result of the
,
~-I
arrest, booking and process of the convicted person.
SECTION VII: Until such time as the disp~te between the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego aslto the amount of
the criminal justice administration fee is resolvled, the courts of
San Diego County are hereby requested to have I criminal justice
administrative fees paid by convicted person in a trust account
administered by the c~unty, the Court Admini trator, or the County
AUditor, to be held fo~ the benefit of thos cities required to pay
such fees to the Couhty. At such tim as the aforementioned
dispute is resolved, said cities may reco er the amount of criminal
justice administration fees previously aid into said trust fund,
together with all interest accruing such fees and thereafter,
all of such fees are to be collected the cities as prescribed in
Government Code 1.
SECTION VIII: This ord'nance shall be published once in
the Chula Vista Star News", a wspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in S~n ego County and circulated in the
City of Chula Vista, within\ f fteen (15) days from and after its
adoption and shall ake eft t and be enforced thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
nd ~r
y
Bruce M. Boogaard, ci
F:\home\luomey\bookfees.ord
I
I
/
\
\
,
!
2
~~
~-Ca
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
~m y
Me~~~Date 7 3 93 1'~lq3.
.~ "
O d. ';;'.h~ I R ~I?> R f" ,/~ ~/c."
r ~nance e ~ng ecovery 0 Cr~m~nal ~1',~
Justice Administratio~ ees Imposed by San Diego
countyo~
Resolution 171'i1i? Appropriating an Additional
$3,855 for the Continuation of the Booking Fees
Litigation
City Attorney~~
}
d7~-~
P J.... ? J;2t:/'l3
SUBMITTED BY:
4j5ths Vote: Yes X No
Commencing July 1, 1992, under the auspices of a new state law, the
County imposed a booking feel' of $176 per criminal defendant
arrested by our police department. While we are protesting the
amount of the fee and the authority to impose same in pending
litigation, and reserve from general fund resources in the event of
an adverse decision, the adoption of the attached ordinance would
create a means, in the interim, of collecting it from criminal
defendants booked through the system during the pendency of the
litigation if it eventually proves unsuccessful. Therefore, this
is a measure that will protect our general fund from a possibly
significant drain on resources, and will cause it to be paid by
those criminal defendants causing us to incur the possible
liability.
RECOMMENDATION:
Place the attached ordinance on first reading and adopt it on
second reading at the next permissible meet~ng.
Adopt a resolution appropriating an additional $3,855 for the
continuation of the pending litigation.
Discussion:
Reason for Proposinq the Attached Ordinance
Pursuant to prior Council authorization, the city of Chula
vista (as well as most other cities in the County) is currently
suing the County over the implementation of booking fees. .
1. More technically
administration fees.
referred to
as
criminal
justice
~
.-6-r
Co --1
Under the state legislation,~ the County assumes authority to
impose booking fees on cities for the booking and other processing
of prisoners when they are turned over to the County by our
arresting officers.
In the litigation, the City is disputing the authority of the
legislation permitting the County to impose booking fees and is
furthermore disputing the manner in which the proposed booking fees
have been calculated.
The litigation, however, looks like it is going to be long and
involved and if the City were to be unsuccessful, the City could
have a large unfunded liability for the past booking fees that are
now not being paid over to the County.~
To mitigate the risk of this liability, the city has set
aside, since April 1, 1991, $404,707.00 into a special fund from
our general fund. While this procedure protects against a sudden,
large liability in the advent of an adverse rUling, it still
constitutes a gradual drain on general fund resources.
The attached ordinance mitigates even further the adverse risk
of loss in the litigation by requesting that the courts require a
person who is convicted as a result of the arrest or put on
probation in lieu of conviction to pay, as a condition of their
probation or fine, the booking fee that San Diego County is
alleging is due them from the City.
The money will be placed into a trust account managed by the
Court, but we will get the credit for same as we authorize its
payment to the County when the litigation is resolved.
This is obviously an additional advantage to the City above
and beyond the general fund set aside procedure we are currently
implementing because we would be collecting it from the criminal
defendant that is causing the fee to be incurred in the first
place.
Our general fund would be relieved of the burden to the extent
we may be successful in collecting it from such criminal
defendants.
Appropriation for Pendinq Litiqation
As you may recall, the Council has authorized the City's
participation in a small "joint exercise of powers" committee
2. Government Code S29550 et seq.
3. Due to the adoption of the protest procedure, the City of Chula
vista has been withholding payment pending the outcome of the
litigation. This is a procedure sanctioned by the provisions of
the Government Code S907.
/
~
~
G-"2.
("JEPC") to conduct and manage this particular litigation against
the County. The committee is composed of four city attorneys
(including the Chula Vista City Attorney) and two city managers
(including the Chula vista City Manager) and reports to the City
Attorneys Association.
Many cities allover the state sued their respective counties,
and all of the litigation was consolidated in a Sacramento Court.
In our particular litigation, the JEPC retained the services
of Libby Silver, Esq. of Meyers, Nave, Riback and Silver, to.
represent the various participating cities, and the costs are being
shared in proportion to the number of bookings each has had. . The
JEPC originally appropriated $50,000 for the litigation, and our
respective share was $3,855, the same as now. The JEPC has now
spent almost all of the original appropriation, and it is the
recommendation of the Executive Committee and of this author that
the JEPC appropriate an additional $50,000, our contributive share
of which would be $3,500 additional.
This is very cost effective litigation.
In addition, the City Attorney desires to take the Council
into closed session to advise them regarding the progress of the
litigation and request authorization to commence negotiations for
a settlement.
Fiscal Impact:
The general fund will be relieved of having to pay the booking
fees to the extent the Courts may agree to, and be successful in,
collecting same from the criminal defendant which required the
booking in the first instance.
The success rate is unknown, but assuming it may be 60%
successful, in an average year, and an average years bookings costs
us about $300,000, the general fund would be relieved of a $180,000
expenditure to the County.
P:\bome\attomey\BooU
~
..v::r
~-3
TInS PAGE BlANK
~
~-~
ORDINANCE NO. ,2~:1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE X, SECTION r?i.\O~
10.48.050 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE _ ~ ~QO
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT~,d~
CERTAIN AREAS - EAST H STREET EAST OF E~~~E
DRIVE, MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD AND PRO~JSRl-'"VALLEY
ROAD ';Jr,CP
WHEREAS, staff has conducted a Traffic Study on East H
Street east of EastLake Drive, Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley
Road as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the study consisted of an analysis of speed
patterns, roadway characteristics, traffic volumes and accident
history and based on these analyses and in the interest of
minimizing traffic hazards and congestion and for the purpose of
the promotion of public safety, the City Engineer is recommending
that the speed limits be decreased as set forth hereinbelow.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
vista does ordain as follows:
.
SECTION I: That Schedule X of Section 10.48.050 of the
Chula vista Municipal Code, Decreasing State Law Maximum Speed
Limits in Certain Areas, is hereby amended to include the following
changes:
SCHEDULE X -
DECREASING STATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS IN
CERTAIN AREAS
Proposed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit
East H Street EastLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 45
Mount Miguel Road Proctor Valley Road South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limits Mount Miguel Road 30
SECTION II: This
full force on the thirtieth
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
P:\bome\au.om~'1036.93
.7-1
TInS PAGE BlANK
~
-p/~~
,
,.1"2-
I:{
~~o
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
. Ite~"'"
M....~ate 7f /93 -'/'2-,}<=12:,
S)OVT'<" -
Ordinance .l.5't. J Amending ~c~lr X, Section 10.48.050 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Co~~ l>S)~reasing State Law Maximum
Speed Limits in Certain A.!~. \'>B'ist H Street east of EastLake Drive,
Mount Miguel Road ~t.~Ctor Valley Road
Director of Public Wor~ ~
City ManagerJc:t ~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
East H Street east of EastLake Drive is a 4-lane major arterial. Mount Miguel Road and
Proctor Valley Road are each Class IT collector streets. Since these streets do not have any
fronting businesses or residences, the unposted prima facia speed limit is 55 mph. Based on
recent traffic surveys, including speed surveys and a study of the roadway geometrics, and in
the interest of public safety, the City Engineer is recommending that East H Street, east of
EastLake Drive be posted at 45 mph, Mount Miguel Road be posted at 35 mph and Proctor
Valley Road be posted at 30 mph.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council place the subject ordinance on first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, on June 10,
1993, voted 6-0-1, Chidester absent, to concur with staff to recommend that City Council adopt
an ordinance establishing speed limits on East H Street, east of EastLake Drive, Mount Miguel
Road and Proctor Valley Road.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has conducted a Traffic Study for the subject locations in accordance with provisions in
the California Vehicle Code. The study consisted of an analysis of speed patterns, roadway
characteristics, traffic volumes and accident history. Based on these analyses and in the
interest of minimizing traffic hazards and congestion and for the purpose of the promotion of
public safety, the City Engineer is recommending that the subject locations be posted as shown
in the following table:
Proposed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit
East H Street EastLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 45
Mount Miguel Road Proctor Valley Road South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limits Mount Miguel Road 30
~
,-I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7
East H Street - between EastLake Drive and Mount Milrue1 Road
East H Street east of EastLake Drive is a 4-lane major arterial which has been unofficially
posted by the contractor with a speed limit of 45 mph. A traffic and engineering study, as
required by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed that the 85th percentile speed
on East H Street between EastLake Drive and Mount Miguel Road is 46 mph. The horizontal
alignment of East "H" Street has a curve with a minimum 2,000 ft. centerline radius. The
design speed for this horizontal curve is over 60 mph. The vertical alignment has a grade
change of 8.5% over a 1,000 ft. length vertical curve. The vertical alignment design speed is
55 mph. Traffic counts completed by staff show an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of
1,220 vehicles per day. At buildout, traffic volumes are expected to increase to approximately
45,000 vehicles per day. Since the roadway has only been open for a short period of time,
there have been no reported traffic accidents within this segment. There are no residential
homes fronting on this street. Based on the results of the speed survey, it has been determined
that the speed limit shall be established at 45 mph.
Mount Milruel Road - between Proctor Vallev Road and the south end
Mount Miguel Road is a 2-lane collector street which does not have a posted speed limit. A
traffic and engineering study, as required, by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed
that the 85th percentile speed on Mount Miguel is 39 mph northbound and 37 mph southbound
(38 mph average) between Proctor Valley Road and the north City limits. The horizontal
alignment of Mount Miguel Road is tangent, there are no curves. The vertical alignment has
a 2.3% grade change which has a design speed of 45 mph. Traffic counts completed by staff
show an ADT of 668 vehicles per day. A review of the accident history shows no reported
traffic accidents on this roadway. There are no residential homes fronting on this street. Based
on the results of the speed survey, it has been determined that the speed limit shall be posted
at 35 mph.
Proctor Vallev Road - between City Limits and Mount Mil!l1el Road
Proctor Valley Road is a 2-lane collector street which does not have a posted speed limit. A
traffic and engineering study, as required by State Law, was conducted by staff and it revealed
that the 85th percentile speed on Proctor Valley Road between Mount Miguel Road and the
City limits, is 45 mph. The horizontal alignment of Proctor Valley Road has a short radius
I
curve with a 500 ft. centerline radius. The desigj1 speed for this curve is less than 40 mph.
The vertical alignment has a grade change of 9.9<)(0 over a 300 ft. length vertical curve. The
vertical alignment design speed is 30 mph. Traffic counts completed by staff show an ADT
of 668 vehicles per day. A review of the accident history for this roadway shows no reported
traffic accidents. The adjacent land use is residential, but there are no homes fronting Proctor
Valley Road. Based on the above mentioned vertical alignment, design speed of 30 mph, it
has been determined that the speed limit shall be established at 30 mph.
~
1-2-
. .
r
Page 3, Item / ,
Meeting Date~ "/~.,I.,:!.
CONCLUSION: Based on the above, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt
an ordinance establishing speed limits on: East H Street, east of EastLake Drive, Mount
Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road as shown on the table.
FISCAL IMPACT: $300 for speed limit signs.
Attachments: 3 Area Plats
3 Engineering/Traffic Surveys
Excerpt Safety Commission minutes dates 6/10/93
File No.: CY.fJ27
WPC F:\bomc\cnginccr\agcnda\lpcedlaw.ord
~
(-~
I
"'-. \...~ROCTOR VALLEY ROAD --"""oVA.... ..... IT."T" _ _ _ _ _ _ .-
"........ ' ..
.-\ I - J '-- \ I I . ~ I I' J ~/'
V '.'''tT-~ iAIN I 0 7' -1:,
\\ JAW I ~~ J1
i~..J,Y^", '<Zi I r ,I:" V\'~ ;:\
I-L.t OLLI I ~ I"~~ \ \ ~\..... ~
'--! '--~ i/::::f::.~t- ! 'x.;1 ~ \ 3:
-~,--~,...............: ~ .... r -
"~~ t=--; =-:; ~ ---:::::; '~Ir~ .
N ........... r- - ~l--.r- ~ ..L~~ .-19..)
" "=:r ~~ ~' ,!--i'
-" cJ \, , \
~ )\ \ \\
'~.\ \. \\.,\~
...:: - \ "............... "
" \ ,- .,.
" \. ....~"; 'i'"'\--
~ ~\ \\ ""Q-' I .~~
~ 19 -;, \..: .... ".'~
~ $r' ~. II ,-:.....,
.........---::..4. 1\'" " I""
a ... 'Iq-"
...-< .' ':, ". :L-:")'"
\-ljs .\. . '9~ __ ,__, I: .. I r--
"---.:.' '" 0'9 .~:~::-. '_' -( /__
/ ""',' ,-.....' rl
~ ":, (i \ \\ ::
\ \ ,\ 1...____ .
,\ \ \. \,----,;
'\'" ,\.... : \ ~
~ \ ..:.,/\z......:-~
...-\_! ~ ,', ~...''''' -----I
""'-F ...;.,,' ,... ~ ___
po.' > ~.. !
~ \ \" " \ ,.-:,\ .
\...l. ~ '1"4< \ \ v /1: ___)
s;: ~ y~;' -y>> ~ "'!- '7). , \ ~,?' ~ :
>lll',., C}.... r--." .~~~.~ ~.~\\~~iY~[)-~~ 19 ~ I: ~:r: i
. ~ r,... .,. I..... \~__I I 1 I
.., co: ..,...~~~, \ '_' : I
1Jd;J ./ .~~ .Y. ~~~.. "~~..~~ >' 1\\ ',----- L -.'
I~~ 1 /.... ~ _ ' '" , )
~ ' -J'.' " >... '(
'~ ~ """. .. -"'~ . n-
' ~.!. ~..." 0.' , - ~ I
r...../""'.J.II ..., .,~ ~
) '?!JJ) /.1 i' ~ -'" '~1
~~~~ ~.. j-- ~
~ ~.L/CJ,
I~ ~ 6)'"'" "/J".'
I~~~ ,~
^r..:~~..-<:/o v
I~~y/
1l'H~"
ORo1\WN BY
S.V.
- ~.---
-
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
"
"
I
"
\
\
I \
1 \" \
PLAT
-
-
TIT L E
--------- --
AR~"
OAT E 4-20 93
----- - --
-tr '7
1-,-\
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET: East "H" Street
LIMITS: Eastlake Drive - Mount Miguel Road
Existing Posted Speed Limit:
45
MPH
*See below
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment: Eastlake Drive - Mount Mi~uel Road
Date Taken: 4/13/93
Number Vehicles on Sample: 50
85th Percentile Speed: 46
Range of Speeds Recorded: 35 - 52
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width 57'-88' roadway
Horizontal Alignment
Vertical Alignment
+ 4-16'
Rmin -
-3.477%
median
/ feet
2,000'
to 5.08%
Number of lanes for both directions
4
over 1,000' V.C. design speed - 55 MPH
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic
On-Street Parking
1,220
Not allowed.
Special Conditions Adiacent land use is residential. Temporary median opening for
access to private road for Salt Creek model homes.
Accident History The accident rate in this segment is lower than the average (2.83)
for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
Susan Vandrew
Date
4/16/93
Recommendation *Establish 45 MPH speed limit due to speed survey.
Per CVC 40803. Survey Expires:
4/13/98
Date recommendation approved:___6/30/93
By ~,.,,~( ;~- x. R~
Approved speed limit: 45 MPH
~
1-5
r-
-
-
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.~tt
"7\
-:l
o~'
~//
~
~"'..-I '
m/.$
~Mi:q:
~. ~.
{"'.....- Q-
- i~ ~z. ..
~ ," 7'..:0:
~~ "N
~~ 7
5--C~ fr~
~~:Jj D/ih,
~(// VT
DR <\WH BY
'.
"
s.v.
~---
-------
DATE
_ _ _ _ _ !-20-93
----
\
TIT L E
-2' Q-A REA
,-6 '
\
PLAT
STREET:
LIMITS:
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
Mount Mi~uel Road
Proctor Valley Road to aouth end
Existing Posted Speed Limit: unpoated MPH
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
Segment:
Date Taken:
Number Vehicles on Sample:
85th Percentile Speed:
Range of Speeds Recorded:
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width 51 - 63'
Horizontal Alignment
Vertical Alignment
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic
On-Street Parking
'" See below
Proctor Valley Road to CVCL
4/19/93
'" 391 (NB) 276 (SB)
39 37
o - 45+ 0 - 45+
NB . northbound SB . southbound
"'data obtained with
traffic counters.
feet Number of lanes for both directions 2
tangent
+1.31% to -1.0% over 150' V.C. desi2n sneed - 45 MPH
668
not allowed
Special Conditions
bike lanes on both sides of roadwav with uainted median.
adiacent land use is residential.
Accident History The accident rate in this se2ment is lower than the avera2e
(2.48 per million vehicle miles)for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
Susan Vandrew
Date
6/29/93
Recommendation
"'Establish 35 MPH due to speed survey
4/19/98
Date recommendation approved: 6/30/93
By r.....4..~'~" X. R~
Approved speed limit: 35 MPH
Per CVC 40803, Survey Expires:
~
I-I
:~
d\...
~ vm.....~ ~IY ~{
fA" 11 ~ T I I I Tl' 1-: rTT 1 / /YI ' (\~
. /'1\( . ,t. e. .,' ---J 'j ~ HU'H 'In." '//]~"'~
I ~ 11 \ i' I ~ -~
I \ J y,'<^- J....... ; <</
· '1j,~1 I I \lV- \'y~
~. '5!~F'I:X~ \~f \_. \\~\ ~
I . '-- c t::::::r- f", : \ -'
.~ ~ ,__:_'--:- ~ -.I ;;;;;;
~ ~)-: : _.;, ~~
," . '- _I-- _ ~~ _ 1.. ) :;:;0 1,\,';" 10-.,--'
"",-<L-- _"'r- ~ ,\ .....
........ \ \. \\..,
....:= .. \\ \, ,...."... ,:1
" ,\ ,........' , -
{: \\ ,t' ~ l
..-{\ ~ \~:- ~ --' ~ :
\"'"' .->0;( \ ',~~. ~
\ . ...J \~......-..-.. \" ~', l.I
1_- .. \ 1/
;-, I ---:1
- II ,r--
- '""" ......, I
.-::...,.....-........ -!' J
., ,-' '
\l--i .\ \.-:~.. ;~
~\ ~ I, " II
\ \ \ I ~ ~=::: :
\ \ ~ I \ ~ t I
" )\,.~ V
\ ",,, ,...::~
) ;' ........." --.....J
t"....... .... \ ...--
I
.-
," \ .... 51. .
\ \ ('........ ----,
\ \
\, )~ .J.- \
\ ........... I
\ 1-' ~ ~J I
. I I
\~--.. . ,
\ 1..1 : I
\ ........___ I. __'
I? "-..
:~ / "-..~ ~
~ . "". / ~;~~,
I~ ~ ..' .. ~ 3q~>
I~" '--/;q
.. /~ ~~ ~ ".~~'{, '\.
I~f /~' J~, ~ '"V ,~
19'~ " ~' ~~y "\
~. .v ,,' ~ > \
~.. ,. -. ", )" ,
" .+'_ 'I: ~
!~.i"" ..." ,i'\ "::,J "1
I:=-J~.,.- ....* . ~, ._a!..l '"
,~~'... 7." : _,. )SO :
'~ '~ E"{)
~'r7) Ii/VI:
'i9Y : fl; lr/] .
. .
DATE
4-20-93
TIT L E
~AREA PLAT
,~~
.
DRoIIWN BY
S.v.
--------- -
--- - ----
SPEED LIMIT -- ENGINEERING/TRAFFIC SURVEY:
STREET:
LIMITS:
Proctor Valley Road
City limits - Mount Miguel Road
Existing Posted Speed Limit: unoosted MPH
SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS
"'See below.
Segment:
Date Taken:
Number Vehicles on Sample:
85th Percentile Speed:
Range of Speeds Recorded:
City limits - Mount Mi2uel Road
4/14/93
50
45
22 - 49
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Width 64'
Horizontal Alignment
Vertical Alignment
feet Number of lanes for both directions
Rmin. - 500'
11.9% to 2.0% over 300' V.C. desiRn soeed - 30 MPH
2
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Average Daily Traffic
On-Street Parking
668
Not allowed.
Special Conditions
Adiacent land use is residential. Bike lane. Painted median.
Accident History The accident rate in this seRment is lower then the averaRe (2.48 per
million vehicle miles) for similar roadways in the State of California.
SURVEY RESULTS
Study was Prepared by
Susan Vandrew
Date
6/29/93
Recommendation
"'Establish 30 MPH due to design speed.
Per CVC 40803. Survey Expires:
4/14/98
Date recommendation approved: 6/30/93
X. e.v-UlP--
By
~#,.c:<.:,..~
Approved speed limit:
30 MPH
~
I-~
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION
Thursday, June 10, 1993
7:04 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Buildin!,
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call:
Present:
Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Padilla, Commissioners Braden, Koester, Matacia,
and Pills
Excused Absence:
Commissioner Chidester
Also Present:
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer; Frank Rivera, Associate Traffic Engineer;
Shirley Buxton, Recording Secretary
2. Pledee of Alleeiance/Silent Praver
3. Aooroval of Minutes August 13, 1992; March 11, 1993, May 13, 1993
MSC (Koester/Matacia) to approve the following sets of Minutes: August 13, 1992 approved 4-0.1.2 with
Commissioner Chidester absent and Chair Thomas and Commissioner Braden abstaining; March 11, 1993
approved 4-0.1.2 with Commissioner Chidester absent and Commissioners Braden and Pitts abstaining; and
May 13, 1993 approved 5.0.1.1 with Commissioner Chidester absent and Vice Chair Padilla abstaining.
4. Soecial Orders of the Dav:
a) Photo Session of 1992-93 Commissioners
MEETING AGENDA
S. REPORT. Speed Limits on Various Streets (East H Street east of Eastlake Drive, Mount Miguel Road,
and Proctor Valley Road
Frank Rivera presented staff's report.
MSC (Koester/Braden) to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing speed limits on
East H Street east of Eastlake Drive, Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road as shown on the following
table. Approved 6-0-1 with Commissioner Chidester absent.
Proposed Speed
Name of Street Beginning At Ending At Limit
East H Street EastLake Drive Mount Miguel Road 4S
Mount Miguel Road Proctor Valley Road South End 35
Proctor Valley Road City Limits Mount Miguel Road 30
6. ORAL COMMUNICATlONS-
Heather Ann Morrison, Francis Parker High School, said she had worked as an intern with the Traffj-
Engineering section for her senior project. She gave a slide presentation of her project and presented it to th
Commission.
~/~ UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
'""'1-10
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
r
Item
Meeting Date 07/27/93
ITEM TITLE:
a)
RESOLUTION 17/7' Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Woodlawn
Park Community Center and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION 1'1/ J'11 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and South
County Council on Aging (Shared Housing) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION I? J (I Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Fair
Housing Council of San Diego and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION J 7 J ('2 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Center for
Women's Studies and Services (Project Safehouse) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement
b)
c)
d)
e)
RESOLUTION 1'14 ;]Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Episcopal
Community Services (Otay Community Clinic) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION 11/ 8''1 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Boys and
Girls Club of Chula Vista (Education Enhancement) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement
RESOLUTION 17/1'5 Approving agreement between the City ofChula Vista and Community
Service Center for the Disabled and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
1)
g)
h)
RESOLUTION 17/ Y(' Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and AIDS
Foundation San Diego and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION I? /8' 7 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and YWCA of
San Diego County (Men's Counseling) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION I '1 J 8'(' Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and YMCA of
Metropolitan San Diego County (YMCA Family Stress Center) and authorizing the Mayor to execute
said agreement
RESOLUTION /71 sf1 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and YMCA of
Metropolitan San Diego County (South Bay Family YMCA Sunshine Company) and authorizing the
Mayor to execute said agreement
RESOLUTION I? J 9() Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and YMCA of
Metropolitan San Diego County (South Bay Family YMCA Summer Day Camp) and authorizing the
Mayor to execute said agreement
m) RESOLUTION J 'J J' J Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and YMCA of
Metropolitan San Diego County (Chula Vista Human Services Council) and authorizing the Mayor
to execute said agreement
i)
j)
k)
1)
y,/
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 07/27/93
y
n) RESOLUTION 1 '1 J" ~ Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Lutheran
Social Services Southern California Project Hand) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement
0) RESOLUTION 171')3 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Adult
Protective Services (South Bay Adult Day Health Center) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement
p) RESOLUTION J 719~APproving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Senior
Adult Services (Meals on Wheels) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
q) RESOLUTION 1'1195 Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Jobs for
Youth and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
r) RESOLUTION 17 J I)" Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and South Bay
Community Services (Casa Nuestra) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
s) RESOLUTION 17 J , ? Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and South Bay
Community Services (Graffiti Eradication) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
t) RESOLUTION 1711 Y Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and South Bay
Community Services (Intervention Team) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
u) RESOLUTION J 719'/ Approving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and South Bay
Community Services (Community Development Program) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said
agreement
v) RESOLUTION 1 ?Gt'4pproving agreement between the City of Chula Vista and MAAC
Project (Emergency Food Program) and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director t5>.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager-JC:t P(j ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X)
BACKGROUND: On May 18, 1993, the City Council approved $255,000 of CDBG funds to
22 social service programs and $96,600 for three community development programs and $53,000
to the Fair Housing Council and Human Services Council programs. The U.S. Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) requires a written agreement between the City and each
sub-recipient of CDBG funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolutions approving agreements
with the social service, community development and fair housing organizations; and, authorize
the Mayor to execute the agreements. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The
Commission on Aging, the Youth Commission, and the Human Relations Commission made
~'.1
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 07/27/93
~
funding recommendations in April 1992 which were considered by Council in approving the
CDBG budget on May 18, 1993.
DISCUSSION:
The contracts between the City and the subgrantees cover the period from July 1, 1993 to June
30, 1994. Each contract agreement has several exhibits attached which are incorporated into the
agreements. The exhibits are as follows:
Exhibit A: The Statement of Work and Performances Schedule describes the services
the agency will be providing and the estimated number of people who will be provided
each of these services each month. This performance schedule will be used to monitor
each agency's progress in completing the scope of work.
Exhibit B: The Itemized Budget shows exactly how the agency intends to expend the
CDBG funds. This itemized budget will be used to monitor expenditures through the
year.
Exhibit C: City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Form
Exhibit D: The HUD Income Limits for the San Diego Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (revised May 1992) will be used to determine the number of low
income households/persons served. Each program is required to serve a minimum of
70 percent low-income persons/household.
The contract agreements are with the following organizations for the purpose and amount stated:
Woodlawn Park Community Center to provide social and recreational activities for
youth and senior citizens $22,000
South County Council on Aging to provide a Shared Housing service, matching
senior citizens or disabled persons with households with extra bedrooms(s). $15,000
Pair Housing Council of San Diego to provide fair housing education and
outreach, fair housing assessment, and tenant/landlord counseling $29,000
Episcopal Community Services Otay Community Clinic to provide health education
and outreach $10,000
Center for Women's Studies and Services, Project Safehouse to provide emergency
shelter and case management $5,000
Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista, Education Enhancement to provide
afterschool program for students who need special help with school work $10,000
8"~~
Page 4, Item 1
Meeting Date 07/27/93
Community Service Center for the Disabled to provide client services for disabled
persons including the Chula Vista job club. $9,000
AIDS Foundation San Diego to provide case management services and
transportation to persons with AIDS/HIV $4,000
YMCA of Metropolitan San Diego County to provide services to abused children
and their families at the YMCA Family Stress Center $20,000
YMCA of Metropolitan San Diego County, Sunshine Company Childcare program
to provide after school childcare for school age children at 4 school sites 17 ,000
YMCA of Metropolitan San Diego County, Summer Day Camp to provide a
summer activity program for youth $6,000
YMCA of Metropolitan San Diego County, Human Services Council for resource
development and coalition building activities $24,000
YWCA of San Diego County, Mens Counseling to provide group therapy for
perpetrators of domestic violence $5,000
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California, Project Hand to provide
emergency services and counseling for homeless families $14,000
Adult Protective Services to provide a comprehensive day program for frail elderly
at the South Bay Adult Health Center $9,000
Senior Adult Services, Meals on Wheels program to provide meals to homebound
elderly and disabled $7,500
Jobs for Youth Program to provide part-time employment opportunities for youth $3,100
South Bay Community Services, Casa Nuestra to provide shelter and supervision
for homeless and runaway youth and family counseling services $15,000
South Bay Community Services/Chula Vista Police Department Intervention Team
to provide counseling services for families involved in domestic violence $15,000
South Bay Community Services to undertake graffiti eradication for neighborhood
revitalization $33,600
South Bay Community Services to undertake community development activities,
including affordable housing development and preservation $48,000
MAAC Project to distribute emergency food to needy families and individuals at
the Otay Community Center $ 7,500
In addition, the Community Development Department will draft and execute Memorandums of
Understanding with other City departments which are utilizing CDBG funds, These include the
Library's Chula Vista Literacy Team ($40,900), Building and Housing's Community Appearance
Program ($15,000), and the Police Department's PAL ($14,000) and CAST ($6,000) programs.
8"i
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 07/27/93
r
The City Council approved $29,000 of funding for the Fair Housing Council of San Diego to
implement a comprehensive fair housing program in the city, as required by CDBG regulations.
The Council approved $24,000 of funding for the Chula Vista Human Services Council; their
allocation was increased by $4,000 over the last year as replacement for funds formerly provide
out of the promotions budget.
FISCAL IMPACT: These contracts, totaling $328,700, will be funded out of the City's 1993-
94 CDBG entitlement of $1.664 million. In the remote event that HUD should withdraw the
City's CDBG funding, the contracts provide that the City is not obligated to compensate the
subgrantees for program expenditures.
[C:\WP51 \HARRIS\CDBG.CON]
[C:WP51ICOUNClLI113SICDBG-94.113]
~"5
RESOLUTION NO.
/717'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND WOODLAWN PARK CIVIC
LEAGUE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B~OO~ ~
City Attorney
8"/1--/ /SIl ~dL
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
C\.\~ E>
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
WOODLAWN PARK CIVIC LEAGUE
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Woodlawn Park
Civic League, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:lHOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
0'/13
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Woodlawn Park Community Center on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $22,000 (Twenty-Two Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(0 number of female-headed households served.
([/1-1(
Page 2
WPC F:\HOMFCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
7. Assignment. The services of Woodlawn Park Civic League are personal
to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned
to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Woodlawn Park Civic League, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
6/1 / ~
Page 3
WI't: F:\HOME'CQMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the.
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. SUsPension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
g'/l ~
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WOODLAWN PARK CIVIC LEAGUE
BY&>l~r~~J2~o~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement ,
iT SCANNED
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
~/J ~-7
Page 5
WOODLAWN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
SCOPE OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT A
The Woodlawn Park Community Center will serve 950 persons by
offering the following programs in 1993-94:
Summertime Youth Program
Senior Luncheon Program
Thanksgiving Luncheon
Christmas Luncheon
Youth Drop-in Activity Program
Cultural Activities for Seniors
Emergency food and clothing
July and August
every Monday
November
December
Year-round
Once a month
Year-round
o/l-~
-
( l
("'<
:; J
EXHIBIT B
WOODLAWN PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
REVISED BUDGET 93/94
SUPPLIES $ 2,100.00
UTILITIES 3,200.00
NSURANCE 9,000.00
TRANSPORTATION 2,400.00
Other 5,300.00
Youth Activities $2,300.00
Health Permit 300.00
Vehicle Registration 200.00
Space Rental
(For Thanksgiving
Luncheon)
300.00
Postage & Printing
250.00
Repair & ."
Maintenance
.., .
1,200.00
Gasoline & Oil
750.00
(For project vehicles)
Total Budget.
, ,.$22,000.00
'6'/J - /
outhern 'california
etropolitan Areas
naheim-santa Ana PMSA
orange county)
akersfield MSA
Kern county)
os Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
Los Angeles County)
.xnard-Ventura PMSA
Ventura county)
.iverside-san Bernardino PMSA
Riverside-san Bernardino
:ounties)
:.an-:D.f,e. gO)(~!1:fl.~.
',..1r.I>1:i'''';;<.....l)Ufit .'
,5'\.11.", ...~~~"""'''',.y.iJ!
:~,ll'..;:....z~!i~!~~.:.:J~;lj
:anta Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
ISA (Santa Barbara county)
:outhern california
lon-Metro counties
:mperial County
:nyo County
10no county
3an Luis Obispo county
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------l:~\i}~}J[-_~
1 Per
$56,500 -LoW-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 LOW-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
$55,200 -Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 Low-Income 23,000
very Low-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38, 150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
\; .$43,900. .Low-Income 24,600 28i100 31,600. 35,100 '37,95'040,,J59!&\{3)550j&1.1g~~!i;Qf'
_.c....., ,.... ..>> 'very" Low-Income 15,350' 17, 550 :"19 ; 750'" 21 i 950 23,7 00 ..~. 25{45 0'''~27''1'20'Of!fr.:2 8')'95'0"
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
LOW-Income 25,500
Very LOW-Income 15,950
LOW-Income 19,200
Very LOW-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
very LOW-Income 13,850
LOW-Income 22,900
Very LOW-Income 14,300
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
~OTEl CALIFORNIA MEDIAN ~'AMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
~
~
~
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
RESOLUTION NO.
J 7J~()
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL
ON AGING AND AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Bru,,1:,g~ ~
rity Attorney
gS-I!g;3-J
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
])
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
SHARED HOUSING
2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individu.als owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
NONE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
Anita Hernandez-President
Shere Mann - Secretary
Dorothy Showman- Treasurer
Phone
Phone-
Phone-
475-2393
426-1617
427-9288
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
MRxinp- WhittinQton (Director)
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No....I....- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate. trust, receiver, syndicate. this and any other county, city and country. city, municipality. district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. or
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
July -7, 1993
~/~,)~
Si ature of contractor/appIican
Maxine Whittington
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[C:I WP51ICOUNCILID1SCLOSE.TXT]
() [] -;5
(Revised: 11130190]
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and South County
Council on Aging, a non-profit organization' ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW; THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOME'CQMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
s8~i
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as detennined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto. and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to detennine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Shared Housing on the condition City receives
sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this agreement,
and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $15,000 (Fifteen
Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more advanced
payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said expenses
is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee, have the option to
tenninate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such tennination upon
amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is the subject matter
of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households serVed during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(t) number of female-headed households Served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
'6f] ~
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of South County Council on Aging are personal
to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned
to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of South County Council on Aging, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regnlations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply. to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Relicious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affIliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the BUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:'JIOME\COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
c;! {3 -b
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Haml1ess. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequ~nt declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In a<<cordance with HOD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be teIDlinated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &: 1087.93
fslJ ~ 7
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of COBG funds, including any program income derived from
COBG funds.
IN WTINESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
BY:?7r~~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit O. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOTSCANNEJ)
WPC F:'\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
'6u / [5'
Page 5
(EXHIBIT A)
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
Shared Housing is a non-profit organization providing
a free service to seniors, including handicapped and
frail elderly, and low and moderate income persons.
Our program goal is to promote a Shared Housing service
where two or more persons share living arrangements and
share in housing related expenses, or exchange services
in lieu of rent, thereby serving both their financial
and social needs. The Shared Housing program often
assists handicapped or frail elderly by providing a
sharer who can provide home services in lieu of rent.
This will allow the owner to remain in their home
rather than become institutionalized.
In addition to the Shared Housing program, SCCOA board
members visit nursing homes in the area on a quarterly
basis providing a social hour with entertainment for
the patients. They select nursing homes where patients
have infrequent visitors or few family members keeping
in touch.
~g~/
( EXHIBIT B )
ITEMIZED BUDGET
SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
1'''"~'''1I11 lIml/(t.( : Tolal: $ -1Q,200 . ~~~~__"""m_~nn
(Incllldc only (hosc cxpcnscs dircctly rclalcd to (hc pwgral11 for which fllllding is
Icqllesled).
(taxes)
~a I ariestllene fit s:
Val'. & Siek Leave
Hcntllllililics: (Phone)
Insurance
I ;.'111 ipnlelllt~l1pplics:
Bookkeeping &
Olher Po stage
Tra veT"&----
Olher Training
~~DJ,!Q
$ 10,736.
1,176.
75/, .
458.
420.
556.
360.
Olher _ilsl ver tis ing
5/,0 ..
Sl1hlotals:
$ 1 5 , 000 .
$
$
813 -If}
(County, of San Die~o)
mIII)~"I.~~!NW;
$ 10,736.
1,176.
75/, .
458.
. /,20.
556.
360.
5/,0.
$ 15,000.
southern California
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-san Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
San Diego..MSA(
'( san';Di'~ g?'f59~1l~:r)
.__..... _.._.,_~,~,.c....,__:.....J...__._.
sant~ Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (santa Barbara county)
southern California
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo county
Mono County
San Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
'~i3J ~Oo.
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------J:~\ll~lJ[--~
1 Per
<Low-Income 27,800
. Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
<Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,600
21,750
35,750
24,650
29,600
16,500
Low-Income 24,600 28,100 31,600
vii~ Low-Income 15,350 "17,550' 19,750
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29,100
16,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
16,400
4 Per
39,700
28,250
26,600
16,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,100
21; 950
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
26,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
<Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE, CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l.h.11ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,600
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,600
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,650
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
6 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
37,950. 40,1!i9A~.~:l.)~~QN,4~~~
23 , 7 0 0'- 2 5;'4 50""2'F,-'2"0'0"""'2r6~.\9"~
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,650
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
26,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
\
~
RESOLUTION NO.
171 RI-L
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF
SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
V ista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shaH certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B~~'~ ~
City Attorney
g-C.) /gC-t
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\l132.93, 1131.93
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier. .
1<'::dr l-lmlc;nB ('QH'Qcil gf S~n ni pgn
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See A~r~~h~d li~t
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -JC- If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
TarnarR KRY Snrkpy
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No....K.- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation. estate. trust. receiver. syndicate. this and any other county. city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
Signature of contractor/applicant
[C:\WP51 \COUNCILID1SCLOSE.TXT]
3' V 3 Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Rev;sed: 11130/90]
THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO
(Board of Directors 1993/Business)
* Term ends November 1993
** Terms ends November 1994
BELL, BOB .
Luee, Forward, Hamilton
and Scripps
600 West Broadway,Ste 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
Bus: 699-2402-
Fax# 232-8311
JAMES, JOYCE..
President-1993
PO Box 740442
San Diego, CA 92174
Bus: 262-3555
CLARK, CORIHNE *
Clark, Gumpel & Gerston
701 B street, Ste 625
San Diego, CA 92101
Bus: 233-1861-
Fax# 233-1879
JOHNSON, BERNARD ..
South East Economic
Corporation
930 Gateway Center Way
San Diego, CA 92102
Bus: 236-7345
Development
DAVIS, EARL W. *
Vice-President
Neighborhood House Assn.
3043 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Bus: 497-3150
Fax #: 492-2095
JOHNSON, SHARON .
Secretary
Res. Relations
3972 Jackdaw ,
San Diego, CA
Bus :
Fax#
of CA
#212
92103
DESROCHERS, PAUL .*
Community Development Commission
140 East 12th Street
National City, CA 91950
Bus: 336-4254
Fax #: 336-1354
LOW, ROBIN *
County EO Mgmt. Office
1600 Pacific Hwy., Rrn 208
San Diego, CA 92101
Bus: 531-4984-
Fax# 557-4060
E'HRINGER, MARTHA **
CA Western Law School
350 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Bus: 525-7636-
Fax# 696-9999
PEARCE, NANCY **
New Venture Research
6994 Pernbridge Lane
San Diego, CA 92139
Bus: 470-8284
GREEN, JUDITH-GAIL.*
NHA Headstart Program
3043 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Bus : 497-3150
Fax#: 497-3187
RYAN, D.J. ."
Pres-1992
Praxis Communications
11233 Tierrasanta Blvd.#30
San Diego, CA 92124
Bus : 467-0094
Fax# 467-0094
HOFFMAN, CHUCK **
Treasurer
ACI Investments
2635 Camino del Rio So.
San Diego, CA 92108
Bus : 299-3000-
Fax#: 299-8536
SANCHEZ, ALEX **
Chicano Federation
610 22nd Street
San Diego, CA 92102
Bus: 236-1228
Fax#: 236-8964
VARNADORE, JIM *
PO Box 14672
San Diego, CA 92176
?)C-i
AGREEMENT SETIING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
TIllS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Fair Housing
Council of San Diego, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
~ c- S---
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as detennined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to detennine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Comoensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Chula Vista Fair Housing Program on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $29,000 (Twenty Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless
a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget
for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
tennination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" foirn shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for person5/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of personslhouseholds served;
(b) the number of person5/households receiving each type of service
provided; .
(c) of the personslhouseholds served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:'HOME'lCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
S"'c-?
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of Fair Housing Council of San Diego are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all fmancial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, resiqency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Fair Housing Council of San Diego, or hiS/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOMFCOMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
gC-?
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the. City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequ~nt declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for conveuience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under Califoruia law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOM:lN:X)MMDEV\1086.93 &:. 1087.93
g-c-y
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO
BY:
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOTSCANNID
WPC F:\HOME'lCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
[5C -;
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK
JULY 1, 1993 - JUNE 30, 19~4
I. The recipient, the Fair Housing Council of San Diego, shall create and provide Fair
Housing and Landlord/Tenant counseling, investigation, mediation/negotiation, education and
referral services for consumers and providers of housing in the.city of Chula Vista.
II. The recipient agrees to provide the following work products, in the dates specified
below to the appropriate delivery point. The statement of work(time line and sequential
tasks) reflects work products in the recipients application submitted in response to the RFP
for Fair Housing Services.
TASK
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
PRODUCTS/DELIVERABLES
DUE DATE
DELIVERY POINT
1.1 Program Coordination
and Administration
Ongoing
David Harris
1.2 Prepare Quarterly Written report
Progress Report for
Program Duration
1.3 Prepare and Submit Final Written Report
Final Program Report
90 days
Quarterly
thereafter
David Harris
390 days
David Harris
2. HOUSING COUNSELING SERVICES
2.1 Create and maintain a Summary report quarterly
hotline for residents
of Chula Vista
Ongoing
David Harris
2.2 Investigate, negotiate Summary report quarterly
Fair Housing complaints
Ongoing
David Harris
2.3 Negotiate Landlord/ Summary report quarterly
Tenant issues
Ongoing
David Harris
~
~
~
3. EDUCATION/OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
3.1 Create and submit four Draft and final copy
articles for publication
Quarterly.
3.2 Provide fair housing and
landlord tenant materials
.Ongoing
3.3 six Fair Housing Impact statement
presentations
(Two to concentrate on disabled community)
Quarterly
3.4 Organize and conduct Invitation to event
elementary school FH
poster contest
April 199~'\
David Harris
David Harris
David Harris
David Harris
~
o
~
FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM FOR CHULA VISTA
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1993 - JUNE 30, 1994
ITEMIZED PROGRAM BUDGET
'Salaries/Benefits: $ 23,090.00
Rent/Utilities: 2,400.00
Equipment/supplies: 200.00
(Postage)
Printing: 1,500.00
Poster Prizes: 970.00
Travel: 490.00
Cater/Rm Rental: 350.00
Total $ 29,000.00
~c -)2
EXHIBITB
southern California
~etropolitan Areas
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
~naheim-santa Ana PMSA
(Orange County)
aakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LOS Angeles County)
~xnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
Riverside-san Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
$41,100
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------J:~lll~}J[--~
1 Per
"Low-Income 27,800
very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150.
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
"Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750.
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46, 050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400.
37,300.
38,00.0
23,750
51,000
31,900.
52,400
36,450.
43,400.
27,150.
'$43,900 ,Low-Income 24,60.0 28;100 " 31,60035,i.0037,95'O/40/7.5g",'.jiA3;~~J)~4~j!,;,!f01t
"'O~.,"" .." vei:'y' Low~Income 15,350' '17,550' -19; 750'21; 950 '23, 7 00~'2Sf450:~27'i\2'00~~'if';\9'5'Q'l!
san " D.lego,;,I<\~.A.t.\
'(;saWi)'reg~~ilii~Y;)i
_..i'l':,~-.:f.h'j:.;.':t.bi'*.;:rM.~~~
santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (Santa Barbara County)
$45,500
Southern California
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
$27,700
Inyo County
$33,600
Mono County
$39,600
San Luis Obispo County
$40,90.0
Low-Income 25,500
Very LOW-Income 15,950
LOW-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750.
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,40.0
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
"Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE. CALIFORNIA MEDIAN }'hMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
~
~
C3
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050.
36,20.0.
22,650.
38,10.0.
23,850
41,80.0.
26,150.
43,20.0.
27,00.0.
RESOLUTION NO.
J 'lllY~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND CENTER FOR WOMEN'S
STUDIES & SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form
;:L~.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
rlD'I/ glJ - tf
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
d
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
Center for WOmen's Studies and Services
2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Laurine Baxter
Laurie Mackenzie
Vera Herbst
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -1L If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
7/16/93
/
(
[c:\ WP51 ICOUNCIL\DISCLOSE.TXT]
Laurie Mackenzie
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
8" D-:3 [Revi..ed: 11130/90(
!!W
:ii:ii
CENTER FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES AND SERVICES. 2467 'E' ST. SAN DIEGO, CA 92102 (619) 233-8984
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
l. Jean Campbell. Ph.D. 6. Teresa Odendahl
Secretary Executive Director
Psychologist National Network of Grantmakers
836 Prospect. Ste. 101 Post Office Box 34625
La Jolla. CA 92037 San Diego. CA 92163
w: 456-2206 w: 220-0690
2. Elizabeth A. Cobbs. Ph.D. 7. Marilyn Robinson
Associate Professor. USD Counselor
9422 El Tejado 7915 Michelle Drive
La Mesa. CA 92041 La Mesa. CA 91942
h: 698-5610 w: 220-0122
3. Shelia Kirk 8. Barabara Watkins. MA. M.F.C.C.
Treasurer Psychotherapist
Bookkeeper Post Office Box 1571
3754 32nd Street. #3 La Jolla. CA 92038
San Diego. CA 92104 456-2367
h: 528-8107
9. Martha O. Williams
4. Joyce Lane Teacher
Vice President 505 16th Street
Elections Analyst San Diego. CA 92101
9422 El Tejado w: 544-9262
La Mesa. CA 91941
w: 533-4024
5. Dr. Joyce Nower
President
Instructor. SDSU
9333 Dillon Drive
La Mesa. CA 91941
h: 464-311 0
'rJD-'/
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
CENTER FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES & SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Center for Women's
Studies & Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
;?(J) ~~
Page 1
WPC FNIOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Project Safehouse/Rape Crisis Center on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $5,000 (Five Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a
more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for
said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any antiCipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
';?j) -~
Page 2
J
7. Assignment. The services of Center for Women's Studies & Services are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all fmancial
records for three years following the term of this agreement The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Center for Women's Studies & Services, or his/her designated representative,
shall represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the
agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative ReQuirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
II. Other Program ReQuirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affIliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUn regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:'HOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
?])-7
Page 3
"
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
2f[) - 6
Page 4
WPC F:'JIOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
, .
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of . 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
CENTER FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES &
SERVICES
B~~h" ~~h
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure StatementNOTSCANNED
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
S'p- /
Page 5
!!W
==
EXH'Rn A
EXHIBIT B
CENTER FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES AND SERVICES. 2467 'F ST. SAN DIEGO, CA 92102 [619J 233-8984
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Fiscal Year 1993-1994
I. Exhibit A: statement of Work and Performance Schedule
We will provide the following services for victims of
domestic violence:
1. Shelter:
~ women and ~ children will be provided with
safe shelter each quarter for a minimum of 7n
women and 24 children for the period of July 1,
1993 through June 30, 1994.
Shelter guests will also be provided the following
services:
a. Individual Counseling
b. Group Counseling
c. Food and Clothing
d. Education Materials
e. Transportation
f. Legal Assistance
2. Hotline: Crisis hotline assistance will be provided
to victims and family members of victims.--2~
II. Exhibit B: Itemized Budget
Item
1. Crisis Hotline (Telephone):
2. Rent:
3. Food:
4. Printing/Education Materials:
5. Temporary Shelter:
TOTAL
Ouarterlv
$250.00
625.00
250.00
62.50
62.50
Total
$1,000.00
2,500.00
1,000.00
250.00
250.00
1. 250.00
$5.000.00
?])-/C
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PM SA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
countiee)
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------J:~lll~lJ[--~
1 Per
-Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
-Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
san Diego MSA, '$4",.,3,' ~ 00 ,
(sari"I)i'e.<;i~9tinty).
'.._:....:.~!::.:...~~_(J:;d-'"'-';iL:;L:,;.;;"'-~'.
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc $45,500
MSA (Santa Barbara County)
southern California
Non-Metro countiee
Imperial County
Inyo county
Mono county
San Luis Obispo county
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
LoW-Income 24,600
Very LOW-Income 15,350
LOW-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
LOW-Income 19,200
Very LoW-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
28,100 31,600
17,55019,750
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,100
21;950
36,400
22,750
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
37,950
23,700
39,300
24,550
27,450 29,650
17,150. 18,500
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
-Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'h..'lILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
40 750 '0' '3.55'0 "\';4""""~:i'OJ.
2 5:450~211~'()O~1li.:r;~t?'S'oi
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
\
~
~
RESOLUTION NO.
l'lIK3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B~t3:g~ ~
City Attorney
~.c:1 /8E-3
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
~
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, Le., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
Episcopal Carmunitv Services
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See Attached List
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -1L If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
M Jean Serafy
Maria Rubio
Jonathan C. Hunter
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ---X- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defmed as: "Any individual, finn, co-pannership, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. II
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date: July 13 1991
[C:\WP51\COUNCIL\DISCLOSE.TXT]
'r5E -3
,lnnFlt ht=ln r Hllntpr
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Rev;sed: 11130/90J
I
\~j
&5. L. Ann Bannister
-- __':/" ...vad
San Diego CA 92130 210
Class of 1993 (1)
~2:. Ronald P. Bird
. .
San Diego CA 92101
Class of 1992 (1)
Liai.son - ao Advisory Coonc:i.l*
&. Frank B. Ensi~, Jr.
-."
Carlshad, CA 9200B
Class of 1994 (1)
Treasurer
Dr. E. Clare Friedman
-. .
La Jolla, CA 92037
Class of 1992 (1)
VP - Persamel *
(
The Rev. Tally H. Jarrett
. --<.
Solana Beach, a 92075
Class of 1994 (1)
Mr. James Parks
.
Chula Vista, CA 92013
/Ir. Leslie E. Marshall
San Diego CA 92109
Class of 1991 (1)
Ms. Elvi J. Olesen
-- --
La Jolla CA 92037
Class of 1994 (2)
, . .:~. Irving W. Parker, KSG
~--, "',--- ~
Santee C.\ 920 1
Class at 1992 (2) EXT: 2667
President lit
EPISCOPAL COMMuNITY SERVICES
Bc:::l.a.rd of Direc:t.o.r:s
~992-~993
....n . I
481-2689 (0)
FAX:
II
239-7337 (0)
FAX: 239-2110
- . .
720-2334 (0)
FAX:
,.
260-4730 (0)
FAX:
J!t
. .
(0)
FAX:
. . )
272-0630/276-2648 (0)
fAX:
... --" ,..1
239-5105 (0)
FAX:
II ..
260-4600 (0)
8-E-Lj
Dr. Talmadge o. Bartley
. - .
San Diego CA 92113
Class of 1993 (1)
Krs. Gwendal vn F. Foss
-~... - .
La 011a, Cd 92037
/Ir. Harold P. Field
_, 1._
Coronaeo CA 92118
Class of 1993 (T)
Chair.Illm - !'lIcilities*
Ms. Antoinette Harris
III _ .._
Coronado a 9211B
Class of 1993 (2)
/Ir. IIichael Weber
-
San Diego, CA 92127
/Irs. Anne T. Marshall
10
La Jolla CA 92037
Class of 1994 (2)
Chainuan - liazd.nat1ncr'
/Ir. Marry Mathis
.-J..... _ '3 _'_U_'"
San Diego CA 9=
Class of 1993 (1)
/Ir, Robe..o-t D. Orpbey
---- ...
La Jolla CA 92037
Class of 1993 (2)
lir. Donald J. Quackenbush
.. .
La Jolla, Crl 92037
Class of 1994 (1)
"" -"1M'
264-42B1l"'"(OJ ~
fAX:
I ,..,
575-9260 (0)
FAX:
" III I')
',435-9107 (0)
fAX:
llil I I)
459-1762 (0)
fAX:
lIT ! ,
234-5354 (0)
fAX:
! I
574-0404 (0)
fAX:
. . )
454-2171 (0)
FAX: 454-2432
( .)
...,~,~
(
c
--
Capt. Michael M. Raggett
-
Coronado ca 92118
Class of 1993 (1)
VP - Rescurce DevelopDent
Ilr. G. Williams Rutherford
Charlotte Bushnell House
-
San Diego CA 92101
Class of 1993 (1)
'lP - ~ !vaJ.uotloo*
!'.r. Stirliug D. Tomkius
-- .. -- - --
San Diego CA 92103
Class of 1993 (2)
The Rev. Jennifer R. Vervynck
._ __...... v..~
Vista ca 92083
Class of 1994 (1)
Ilrs. Nell f. Waltz
. --. - -
La Jolla, Cd 92037
Class of 1994 (1)
Mrs. Leccra T. Witt
M_'
San Diego CA 92106
Class of 1994 (2)
Secretary
II
- .--- '.~,
238-1701 (0)
fAX: 696-1443
- --- n
297-4756 (0)
fAX:
-- -- ~..,
726-4280 (0)
fAX:
- - . n
494-7871 (0)
fAX:
II
222-2035 (0)
fAX:
Dr. Robert T. Reese
oj"'" 1,
La Jolla Cd 92037
Class of 1994 (2)
Ilr. Warren Sands
L. _ illL "
San Diego Cd 92128
Class of 1993 (1)
/Il..r. E. Bert Valentine
ill J ~_ ..___
Solana Beach CA 92075
Class of 1993 (2)
lis. Elizabeth IIalker
J _ - -----
San Diego CA 92111
Class of 1993 (2)
CbaiIllIlIII - Porl:Ih !.eader.dl1;l
I!rs. Shirley Williamson
--- - .
Coronado CA 92118
Diocesan EC,.J Pres.
Mr. Lee Johnson
San Oiego, CA 92120
Bishop Gethiu B. Hughes
Episcopal Diocese of San Diego
San Diego, Cd 92103
c..- - --
o r-.,5
(H)
456-8242 (0)
fax:
LIi fl 1 )
485-9693 (0)
fAX:
......~ --...... \'"
253-6921 (0)
fAX:
\.
1 J fill ["")
m-7208 (0)
fAX:
II
435-8423 (0)
fAX:
,
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Episcopal
Community Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (I) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
~f~?
Page 1
WPC F:lHOMElCOMMDEW086.93 .!r. 1087.93
,
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Outreach Health Education on the condition City
receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this
agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $10,000
(Ten Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more
advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said
expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WFC F:lHOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
g-E- ')
Page 2
,
7. Assignment. The services of Episcopal Community Services (Outreach
Health) are personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by
subagreement, be assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all fmancial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete imancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or hislher
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Episcopal Community Services (Outreach Health), or his/her designated
representative, shall represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered
pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Reouirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
FE-!5
Page 3
WPC F:\IIOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 10$7.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &:. 1087.93
>5E~Cj
Page 4
. .
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY; .
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
(OUTREACH HEALTH)
B~~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
'irE -/t?
Page 5
WPC F:'JIOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK/PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
TIMELINE
1. HIRE:
Outreach Health Educator (OHEl
Fifteen days from finding
2. ORIENT:
OHE to ECS South Bay Programs
Within Fifteen days of
Hire
3. SCHEDULE:
Presentations to ECS Programs
Minimum 4
Within Thirty Days of
Hire
4. PROVIDE:
Health Education Classes
& Individual Sessions at
ECS South Bay Programs
Minimum 20 per month
Within Thirty Days of
Hire and Ongoing
5. SCHEDULE:
Presentations at Community
Agencies, Centers and Other
Interested Groups or Companies
Minimum 10
Within Ninety Days of
Hire and Ongoing
6. PREPARE:
Progress Reports
Quarterly
ljf-//
EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
EXHIBIT B
ITEMIZED BUDGET
CDBG OTHER FUNDS
Salaries/Benefits $ 8,000 $ 4,500
Rent/Utilities 500 600
Equipment/Supplies 500 100
Mileage/Tokens 1,000 100
Management Fee 0 L 700
Totals $ 10,000 $ 7,000
?E/c2
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
Counties)
pan Diego MSA(
(8 """;Di"'eg~9);1?ty),
:,-.,;. "~,_...:.<:",::l",~::,:"..;o.,,~;:..:.!'-......
Santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
HSA (santa Barbara County)
southern California
Non-Metro counties
Imperial county
Inyo County
Hono county
san Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------J:~\ll~IJ[-_~
1 Per
$56,500 'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 LOW-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 LOW-Income 27,050
Very Low~Income 16,900
$55,200 'LoW-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 Low-Income 23,000
very Low-Income 14,400
, $P,900
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
Low-Income 24,600
Very Low-Income 15,350
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
28,100
17,550
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
31,600
19,750
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
1.8,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,100
21,950
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE' CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'A11ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
37,950 .' 40 ,750j(,(~3)5?pli\lj4~~!'Q';i.
23 , 700 .. 25" 4 5 0'o$'27;:^200il';"2"8~\9%~
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
\ \
~
RESOLUTION NO.
J7J~'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF
CHULA VISTA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B=!:-.O:~ ~
City Attorney
gF--//gr-5
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC: F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
EXHIBIT C
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
f
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contriblltions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
NONE
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnerShip, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as dir~tor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -.lL If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
w. SCOTT MOSHER
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -1L.. If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defmed as: "Any individual, finn, co-pannership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unil."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
,TlJr,v 01, ]993
lu.~~~
Signature of contractor/applicant
(C:\WPSl \COUNCILID1SCLOSE.TXT]
W. SCOTT MOSHER
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
6 r - 3 [Revised: 11130/9OJ
.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FISCAL YEAR 92-93
Joseph M. Conte
900 Otay Lakes Road
Chula Vista, CA 91910
President, Southwestern Community
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Robert P. Fox (Kimberly)
1080 Winding Oak Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Mortgage Loan Broker
victoria Gutierrez (Eddie)
428 Stoneridge Court
Bonita, CA 91902
Owner, Victoria's Cuisine
Trish Hannon (Don)
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center
751 Medical Center Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Director of Nursing, Special Care
SECRETARY/TREASURER
Catherine Jamison (Jerry)
1097 Oleander Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
JamisonBell Advertising
Royce Jensen
895 Mesa place
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Pacific Commerce
(Beth)
Bank
VICE PRESIDENT
Paul Kapler
2149 Bluewater Lane
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Broker/Owner
of ADMINISTRATION
(Sharon)
VICE PRESIDENT of FINANCE
George Krempl (Mary)
319 E. James street
chula Vista, CA 91910
Deputy City Manager
1Ir- -1
Page 1 of 3
06/93
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
F ~ SCliLYEAR 92 - 93
Page 2 of 3
06/93
Janay Kruger
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite K
San Diego, CA 92122
Property Development/Rehabilitatio
Jayne Maple (Max)
Appropriate Technologies
750 Design Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Administration/public Relations
I. Joseph Matacia (Emily)
550 Galveston Way
Bonita, CA 91902-4062
Management Consultant
Don Read (Crystal)
233 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CEO Chamber of Commerce
Benjamin Richardson
971 Gallery Court
San Diego, CA 92114
General Manager, Chula Vista Cente
Kathleen Schaeffer (Paul)
1765 Yale Court
Chula Vista, CA 91913
Owner, Postal Annex #3
James Weaver
8364 Clairemont Mesa
San Diego, CA 92111
General Manager
(Jane)
Blvd. suite F
PRESIDENT
Sue Welsh
600-32 Sheffield Court
Chula Vista, CA 91910
child Care Administrator
~ )::-5'
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993; for the pwposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Boys and Girls Club
of Chula Vista, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (I) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
CZ5r-?
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Education Enhancement Program on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $10,000 (Ten Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a
more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for
said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F~OME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
J5~ -7
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete rmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Boys and Girls Club of Chula Vista, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative ReQuirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
II. Other Program ReQuirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affIliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOME"COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
?5 r-sY
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16.- Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
!?~-~
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
l>J.~ ~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
'1)/:::- ~J 0
Page 5
WPC F:'HOME"COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
EXHIBIT A
.
STATEMENT OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
The Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista helps build the self-esteem
and self-confidence of young people and helps prepare them for a
responsible and self-sufficient adulthood. This occurs through
activities including homework help/tutoring, substance abuse
prevention, specialized health education programs, fine arts,
social recreation, and individual and team sports. This is aug-
mented by several special interest group clubs and youth devel-
opment programs.
This grant will help fund our new Education Enhancement Program.
This program is designed to assist elementary and junior high
school youth in their school work. Some of these services will
be provided through homework help while others will be provided
through tutoring, Operation Smart, Computer Education, and other
learning center programs.
Staffing will consist of an education specialist, program assis-
tants, and volunteers. It will be augmented by a portion of the
Program Director and Girls Program Specialist's time.
The program will serve 200 youth, ages 6-14, from local schools
served by our Oleander Center. Some of the youth served will be
drop-in while others will be referrals by teachers and other
school district personnel who have identified students who are in
need of the program. Fifty percent of the youth served will be
from low-income families.
CDBG funds will be used for personnel expenses and some material
and supply costs to conduct these program activities.
The program will start
will be scheduled on a
school is in session.
week, Monday - Friday.
on July 26, 1993. Specific programming
quarterly basis during the time that
Services will be delivered five days a
dfl
EXHIBIT B
BUDGET
EXPENSES
CDBG OTHER FUNDS
Salaries/Benefits $ 8,500
Space Costs $ 5,703
Materials & Supplies $ 1,500 $ 4,800
Total $10,000 $10,503
INCOME
CDBG
$10,000
5,000
5,503
Grants
Contributions/Fundraising
TOTAL
$20,503
i5r~/c2
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(Orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Rern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PM SA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITs---------------------I:~\ll~}J[--~
1 Per
$56,500 "Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
$55,200 "Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 LOW-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
1~,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
,w... ~02.~~iyI~~~~~ncome i~: ~~~ m m2~~~: ~~~.;~: ~~~n: ~~~f:~~;~1~8~ig~~
San DiegoM(l.At
'(san;;I>i^eg~~l:j\ii1~y ),
_. :'_~ '-:~: ,,'.':..~::'......l,.,;::>i.~~,:t..:.:;J~;:j::.I<.:,i,.
Santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo County
Mono County
San Luis Obispo County
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE' CALIFORNIA MEDIAN "&~ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
t:)
\
~
RESOLUTION NO.
/ ')/ Jl5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISABLED AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on fIle in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form
iL. ih.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
rlc-,7t;:;
WPC F:\HOME\COMtYIDEV\1132.93. 1131.93
,
THE CITY OF CHUU VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
J'
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
The Access Center of San Diego
(tormerly the Communlty ~ervlce
Center for the Disabled)
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ---* If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
'i.7prr..n;,..::ll P.::tolro'Y',
Director of Resource Development
n IbgrtQ A~Yala,
.1()h rlnh ('()()rni n;=trnr
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate. trust J receiver, syndicate. this and any other county. city and country, city. municipality. district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
[C,IWP51ICOUNCILIDISCLOSE.TXT]
~oL~
Sig'nature of CO ctor/applicant
Pa};tlci.. Vtf4&glL
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
86--3
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date: ;1~ IL.J( {qq3
[Revised, ll130(90J
..-------- .
THE ACCESS CENTER
CSCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1992-93
COMMITTEES
DISABILITY
Ronald L. Penksa, Chair
Vice President, Investments
260 West Grand Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
741-8319
Finance
Royce Hamrick, Vice-Chair
7707 Mission Gorge Rd #25
San Diego, CA 92120
Development
Mobility
Burt Eaves, Treasurer
Vice President & Manager
San Diego Trust & Savings
231 West Main Street
EI Cajon, CA 92020-4584
Finance
Anne Heller, Secretary Personnel, Program
Associate Dean of Disabled Students
San Diego community College District
4610 Van Dyke Ave
San Diego, CA 92116
Betty Bacon
Director, SDSU
Disabled Student Services
5667 Fontaine Street
San Diego, CA 92120
Program, Nominating Mobility
Berenice Bernard
Architect
4375 Alamo Drive
San Diego, CA 92115
Personnel Mobility
Building
Michael conroy
3996 Shasta st #103
San Diego, CA 92109
Nominating Mobility
Building
Rick Garcia
Building
American Ozark General Inc.
P.O. Box 740829
Building
Mobility
Arnold Fluster
Management Analyst
10449 Westchester Avneue
San Diego,CA 92126-3340
Development
By-Laws
Diabetes
.--
~G-i
Jim Mcvay
1205 Savoy Street
San Diego, CA 92107
Robert Meissner
Videographer
9522 Via Pereza Street
San Diego, CA 92129
Sharon Terrill
Public Affairs Manager
Pacific Bell
525 B Street suite 1770
San Diego, CA 92101
Ray Uzeta
Executive Director
Chicano Federation
610 22nd Street
San Diego, CA 92102
Diane Ward
Ward & Associates
5230 Carroll Canyon Rd Suite 106
San Diego, CA 92121
Finance
Public Relations
Development
By-Laws
Executive Advisory
Council
Nominating
Building
Development
Finance
Executive Advisory
,--
?G-S--
Mobility
Neuro-
Muscular
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER FOR DISABLED
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Community Service
Center for Disabled, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087_93
g-G-~
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Social Services on the condition City receives
sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this agreement,
and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $9,000 (Nine
Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more advanced
payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said expenses
is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee, have the option to
terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such termination upon
amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is the subject matter
of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
i?C--?
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of Community Service Center for Disabled are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete f'mancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Community Service Center for Disabled, or his/her designated representative,
shall represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the
agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Reauirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
II. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
:>S6-s
Page 3
WPC F:'\HOME\COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free WorkDlace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'lCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?[C-j
Page 4
. .
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
COBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER FOR
DISABLED
BY: jJJlrv/.};u- t~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:'JIOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
yc;-/tJ
Page 5
/ THE ACCESS CENTER
OF SAN DIEGO. INC.
(formerly Community Service Center for the Disabled!
1295 University Avenue # I O. San Diel!o. CA 92103.3333
(619) 293.3500 . (619) 293-7757 TOO . (619) 293.3508 FAX
'-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
JOB CLUB FUNDING FOR 1993-94
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
The City of Chula vista 1994 CDBG grant award of $9,000, along
with the balance of $1,100 remaining from our 1992-93 allocation,
will enable the agency to provide Job Club Services to at least
120 disabled individuals, including a minimum of 108 Chula vista
residents, between the period of July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994.
An average of 9 Chula vista residents will be .served each month
through this program.
EXHIBIT B
:I'lE>lIZID J:llJUjIS"l"
'lurAL
0illIA VISTA
<mlER
Servioe PraI7ider 50%
salary & Fringe J3enefits(20%)
$12,100
$10,100
$2,000
S"ppcl""~d. in ...n. =1
o
8'G II
U...U:..d .......V/CHAC
C~mp.,<;~
Southern California
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
Oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
.san. DiegO)1S!'\1:;
'(.s ari'i;Dreg~(Nh1;y.h
"... :_~~;;'.;:..;,":L.,:,::j~&\S:r-..-:k;L,,"-''''''
sant~ Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (santa Barbara county)
southern California
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo county
Mono County
San Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS_____________________J:~lJl~IJ[__~
1 Per
-Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
-Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
Very LOW-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
1~,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
\$43; 900 fLOW-Income ' 2145'"630500.::.21'.'78,, ls0s00t63191','760S00 ,,3251','9iOS'00 .P273',}7.5000Ki~Q5..;!t,..1.5.5i~~~al:S:,.~0.'"~8 '.
.,_...........Very-Low-Income ~ '4 (6!l:l11:2?l!l2'o'(j_l~ra~1f61I
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very LOW-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
-Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'&'1ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
.l
\tJ
ex;
RESOLUTION NO.
I 'lJ 8"~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AIDS FOUNDATION SAN
DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form by
,<!L 1ft.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
?II -/ /811-5
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
h
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier. .......
AID~ ~"...cl.o..-tM. ~ D~o
2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
No,,~
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
Sa. ",*...Jv...L ~4 .
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
u..~l.. }-Jo-,-,. '-"4 ~~ ~~
'C>IA-N~ ~""IJ~ ~." t=.,.,..u t-Jt:r
S..,AN Cou:..
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X. If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
t
[C,IWPSIICOUNCILIDISCLOSE.TXT]
6/'J---3
C~L. ~;n
Print or type name of ontractor/applicant
[Revised, IlI30/90(
...
AIDS Foundation San Diego
Board of Directors - July 1993
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Garrett Dettling, Ph.D
Counselors/Consultants
2550 Fifth Avenue #520
San Diego, CA 92103
231-3855 FAX 231-0910
276-8143
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Lois French (Robert)
9226 Briercrest Drive
La Mesa, CA 91942
463-800 1
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Gloria Ann Garcia
Girl Scouts of America
P.O. Box 3681
San Diego, CA 92163
298-8393 (ext. 270)
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Yolanda Jackson
Wells Fargo Bank
1350 Fashion Valley Rd.
San Diego, CA 92108
688-3445
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Susanna Knott, Ph.D
3356 Second Ave., Ste G
San Diego, CA 92103
574-7611
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Ken Komweibel
3629 Louisiana Street
San Diego, CA 92104
291-4293
Interior Design
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Tom Lidot
Indian Health Council
Box 406
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
749-1410
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
DennisJ. McCune(Chri~
5780 Amari110 Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942-2889
466-1115
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
S// ~ 'I
.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Walden Miller, Ph.D
1027 E Fifth Ave
Escondido, CA 92025
739-8429
Researcher
HIV Neurological Research Center
27&:1 Fifth Avenue, SD 92103
543-5050 FAX543-1235
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Mark Mischan
4237 33rd St.
San Diego, CA 92104-1403
584-4918
Client Representative
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Dale Poe (George)
8211 Vincetta Drive #22
La Mesa, CA 91942
698-4294 (roommate, Phil)
Client Representative
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Steve Vealey
Plumbers/Steamfitters U .A.
3909 Centre Street
San Diego, CA 92103
297-1851 FAX297-9858
271-1333
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Kim Yvette Walker
4020 Utah Street #13
San Diego, CA 92103
291-8727
Assistant Director
American Indian Health Ctr
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Katherine D. Waller
6019 Portobelo Court
San Diego, CA 92124
292-1253
Dean of Student Affairs
UCSD Gradutate School of
International Relations
534-5914 FAX534-3939
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Carol A. Nottley
Executive Director
AIDS Foundation San Diego
4080 Centre Street
San Diego, C4 92103
686-5050
fj/f5
~
AGREEMENT SETfING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
AIDS FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and AIDS Foundation
San Diego, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement; .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Requirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
lr f/~~
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Social Services & Case Management on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $4,000 (Four Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a
more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for
said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
( e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
;r)j~7
Page 2
7. Assignment The services of AIDS Foundation San Diego are personal to
that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreemeIit, be assigned
to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete xmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of AIDS Foundation San Diego, or his/her designated representative, shall represent
the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative ReQuirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
II. Other Program ReQuirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under'this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
~fj-~
Page 3
WPC F:\HOMBCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in conneetion with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's controL The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
(?'}j~7
Page 4
WPC F:IIIOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
. .
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and 'any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of . 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
AIDS FOUNDATION SAN DIEGO
BY: ~(L~,
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:'HOMECOMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
?/7-/0
Page 5
. .
EXHIBIT A
July 14, 1993
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attention: David Harris
ATTACHMENT TO AGREEMENT
Chula Vista 1993-94 CDBG Funding for AIDS Foundation San Diego
1. DESCRIPTION
Chula Vista CDBG funding shall be used to maintain a current level
of service the AIDS Foundation San Diego (AFSD) Clinical and Social
Services Program is providing to Chula Vista residents through Case
Management Services. These services are provided at the AFSD
offices located at 4080 Center Street, San Diego, except in cases
where a home or hospital visit is required.
Case Management Services. AFSD' s Clinical And Social Services
Program provides a variety of ongoing services which are available
to Chula Vista individuals and families affected by HIV disease.
People with AIDS or ARC who work with AFSD Case Managers are
assisted with the proper and timely filing of public benefit forms
and applications, are provided with a psychological assessment,
legal guidance, and referrals to social services, housing and
health care facilities. Case Managers also provide help with
client's families, counseling services and referrals to all the
other programs and services provided by AFSD including Truax House,
the Food Bank, Buddy Program, Support Groups, Recreation and
Transportation Services.
Number of Chula Vista Clients Served. Fifty (50) residents of
Chula Vista benefitted from AFSD Clinical and Social Services in
1992-1993 and we estimate that approximately fifty residents will
be served in 1993-1994 with current CDBG funding. Most of these
clients fall below the Federal "low income" status.
AFSD identifies clients through outreach activities, walk-ins, and
referrals from County agencies, medical care providers and other
social service agencies. From the Chula Vista area AFSD will
receive referrals from the Episcopal Community Services, Social
Security Offices, UCSD, and community clinics in other cities.
2'JI~//
To supplement these case management services, AFSD has initiated a
weekly Publics Benefits Clinic which offers people with HIV disease
the opportunity to be assisted by professionals from a variety of
fields of expertise with Public Benefits procedures and
entitlement applications.
Community Education and Outreach. Community educational and aCcess
to these services and programs are made available through outreach
and education programs which include the Speaker's Bureau, AIDS in
the Workplace Programs and street outreach. In addition, all Chula
Vista residents have access to English and Spanish information and
services through AFSD as well as referrals to other services and
programs.
2. SCHEDULE
Expected Number of Chula Vista Clients to Be served by
AFSD Case Management Services in 1993-1994: 50
Chula Vista CDBG funds will be used in the provision of Case
Management Services. Should the number of clients from Chula Vista
fall below the projected number, AFSD will assess outreach and
referral programs to assure Chula Vista clients and local social
and health care providers are maximizing their use of the AFSD
Case Management program.
The number of clients and the number of hours dedicated to services
in Chula Vista by Case Management will be monitored on an annual
basis. During 1992-93, AFSD served approximately 50 clients from
Chula Vista which represented approximately 5.5% of the total AFSD
case load. For the purpose of this funding cycle AFSD will assume
that 5.5% of its entire case load will come from Chula Vista.
Four full-time Case Managers provide a minimum of 160 staff hours
per week. At an average rate of $16.50/hour, clients: from Chula
Vista receive $145.00 in AFSD Case Management services each week or
$7,500.00 per year ($1875.00 per quarter). This does not include
the Director of Clinical and Social Services salary, rent, office
equipment, or administration expenses. Chula Vista CDBG funds will
be directly applied to Case Management staff salaries.
In addition to Case Management services, Chula Vista residents will
also receive other services provided by AFSD such as Food Bank,
Transportation, Buddy Program, Emergency Assistance Fund, Support
Groups, Recreation Programs and other educational services. These
services are not funded by the current Chula Vista CDBG funding.
y)j//c2
3. BUDGET
ITEM
Salaries/Benefits
CDBG
4,000
Rent
Equipment/Supplies
Administrative Overhead
TOTAL
4,000
BUDGET FOR CHULA VISTA SERVICES
ITEM
Salaries/Benefits
Rent
Equipment/Supplies
Administrative Overhead
PCT
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
TOTAL
12,980
660
1,320
2,200
TOTAL
17 ,160
4. RECORDS TO BE MAINTAINED.
EXHIBtT 8
AFSD TOTAL
236,000 240,000
12,000 12,000
24,000 24,000
40,000 40,000
312,000 316,000
CDBG
4,000
AFSD
8,980
660
1,320
2,200
4,000 13,160
During this period, AFSD Case Managers will keep accurate records
of the number or clients the agency receives from Chu1a Vista, the
services that these clients required, and the AFSD services that
were requested.
EVALUATION. The Director of Clinical and Social Services is
responsible for Internal Evaluation Policies and Procedures.
Quality Assurance includes Client Satisfaction Surveys and client
follow-up to be sure that clients are receiving satisfactory
assistance and support.
Application of the Chula Vista CDBG funds for AFSD Case Management
Services will be applied to services rendered between June 1, 1993
and May 31, 1994. These statistics will be periodically assessed
in order to report on the number of clients being served from Chula
Vista, and the types of services Chula Vista residents are
requiring.
25)/-/3
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------I:~lJl~lJ[--~
1 Per
$56,500 -Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
Los Angelee-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
$55,200 -Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 LOW-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
'~~,3J~,.0~ "Low-Income 24,600 28il00 31,600,35,io037,950';;40;,,1~g~~li;~~itR:tgi<<4~.m=
'verY Low-Income 15,350 '17,550"19;750"- 21i 95023;700~''25'r450-2'7~'0'6~e'l'9-s'0'"
pan Diego,MSAt
'(S"h"'Di'eg~C5uhty ),
: ,~'_~_<~LL.E-J.&>i:.:~~;:t~:J:;'-,,-u..j;..
Santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (Santa Barbara County)
$45,500
southern California
Non-Metro countiee
Imperial County
$27,700
Inyo County
$33,600
Mono county
$39,600
san Luis Obispo County
$40,900
Low-Income 25,500
Very LOW-Income 15,950
LOW-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
LOW-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
-Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN ,hMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
'~
~
&;
RESOLUTION NO. /? I ~7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND YWCA BATTERED WOMEN'S
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B~OO~ ~
City Attorney
t1'''/ jSJ-5
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Wf'(; F:\HOME\COMMDEV\l132.93, 1131.93
f
.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
~~{.'n o-f ~;:l'n n-lPT rhlmt-y
2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
NJNE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No -.lL If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Jat:l;9 T"l::::l"ri C! "Rvt:::lf""11t-i....TP nir~+-llr
rnrnp 1 ia ~n. Director Battered \\brren' s Services
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ----X- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county. dty and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unil."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date: July 15, 1993
[CIWP51ICOUNCILIDISCWSE.TXT]
Janie D3.vis
ZI- _s Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 11130/90]
YWCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ROSTER
FEBRUARY 1993
NAME ADDRESS TERM PHONE
ELVIA AGUILAR 256 CORALWOOD 1/93 H 422-3462
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 W 260-7003
JANICE BROWN SELTZER, CAPLAN & McMAHON 1/94 H 497-1707
750 B STREET, 21ST FLOOR W 685-3003
SAN DIEGO, CA ~2101 F 685-3100
LINDA CHESNUT 11030 FORESTVIEW LANE 1/94 H 578-3531
FINANCE CHAIR SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 W 549-7522
F 549-7525
DIANE DEGAILLEZ 108 BLUE ASH COURT 1/95 H 634-0867
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 W 633-1010
MICKI FARRELL 2123 CAMINITO SAN MARTIN 1/95 H 454-2123
LA JOLLA, CA W 531-1500
IRENE FREEMAN 1550 HOTEL CIRCLE NORTH 1/95 H 691-9325
SUITE 110 W 542-0400
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
JOAN MARTiN (*E) C/O CALL DOCTOR, INC. 2/93 H 226-8863
CAMPAIGN CHAIR 2924 EMERSON ST., STE. 300 W
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 F
EUPHEMIA NG 11078 AVENIDA PLAYA VERA CRUZ 2/95 H 467-1073
SAN DIEGO, CA 92124 W 235-4282
ASHLEY PHILLIPS 2850 SIXTH AVENUE #311 2/95 H 756-3574
(LEAVE OF ABSENCE) SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 W 298-9352
F 298-3406
PEGGY PRICE (*E) 900 ALAMEDA BLVD. 2/93 H 435-2358
SECRETARY CORONADO, CA 92118
JULIE SHAKE (*E) 3636 ARIZONA ST. 1/94 H 692-9273
TREASURER SAN DIEGO, CA 92104
0):/1
NAME ADDRESS TERM PHONE
ELLEN STANBROUGH 4070-19 PORTE LA PAZ 1/94 H 455-0194
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 W 691-2909
JOANN STANG 3536 EMERSON ST. 1/94 H 222-1680
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 W 544-5127
F 544-2682
MARY LOU WASHATKAC*E) 6283 LAKEWOOD STREET 2/95 H 546-8250
PRESIDENT SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 F 546-8250*
*(call first)
SHEILA WASHINGTON WASHINGTON ENTERPRISES 1/94 H 238-4313
225 BROADWAY W 237-0559
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 F 237-0521
LAURA WYNNE 3527 MARATHON DRIVE 1/95 H 292-9497
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
*E EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (H - HOME; W - WORK; F - FAX)
(PHONE NUMBER IN BOLD IS THE PREFERRED NUMBER TO CALL)
(jf-5
.,
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
YWCA BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and YWCA Battered
Women's Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (I) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOMBCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
(?J- t
Page 1
'.
provided services sh,all be of low income, as detennined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incOlporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Men's Counseling on the condition City receives
sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this agreement,
and the City shilll compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $5,000 (Five
Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more advanced
payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said expenses
is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee, have the option to
terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such termination upon
amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is the subject matter
of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:'JIOMBCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
~I-?
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of YWCA Battered Women's Services are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered " pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of YWCA Battered Women's Services, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
tf]: ~ 2/
Page 3
IS. Drug-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
'iJf-'j
Page 4
. I ~ .
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
YWCA BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICES
BY~~" [hi Jr:O
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNEi:.'
WPC F:\HOMb'COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
'6J- It}
Page 5
Exhibit A
YWCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICES
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
The YWCA/BWS Men's Counseling service holds two domestic violence
treatment counseling groups for court referred clients. These
groups are held at 6:30 pm and at 8:00 pm, on Wednesday nights at
the Chula vista Boys and Girls Clubs, 1301 Oleander.
Both groups are conducted in Spanish by Lauretta Orosco, MA, a
skilled facilitator with extensive experience in domestic violence
counseling and a particular expertise in working with the Latino
family. Groups combine psycho-educational techniques utilizing
written and visual materials in spanish, and group therapy.
July 1993-June 1994
Groups are held each week (with the exception of the
Christmas holiday). New members continue to be
assigned to the groups with the optimum membership of 12
men per group.
Clinical supervision is provided by the clinical
director, Julia Ritzo, MA, MFCC, and overall program
supervision is provided by the director of Battered
Women's Services, Cordelia Ryan.
7/93
""; ~ /
15..1 ~ J
Salaries/Benefits:
Rent:
utilities:
Equipment/Supplies:
Travel:
Printing:
Postage:
Insurance:
Subtotals:
TOTAL:
$7307
7/93
Exhibit B
YWCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICES
ITEMIZED BUDGET
CDBG
$2652
OTHER FUNDS
$1357
1248
100
100
800
200
300
200
100
100
250
$5000
$2307
?!f./J~
Southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-Santa Ana PMSA
(orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
Oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
san., Diego J.lSAj>
~Sari,*Ilfeg~9Iifi~Y)i
t1'._"'-.~~~...:;ij.::1.,tC;~~~'"
s~nta Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MeA (santa Barbara County)
Southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo county
Mono County
San Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55/200
$41,100
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------I:~ll}~lJ[--~
1 Per
"LOW-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27/050
Very Low-Income 16,900
"Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19/300
Low-Income 23,000
very Low-Income 14,400
2 Per
31,750
22/600
23,050
14/400
30,900
19,300
31/750
22,100
26,300
16/450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21/750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26/100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
\. $43 900 L I 24 600 28,'100 :...... 31,600.'.35,100 37 950.<;40>15Ii;i.~"43"ifS~.l\mrA'~
',.,d,,-~,V~~~'~~~~~ncome 15: 350"17, 550"""19i750~' 21; 950 ;23:700i!;;;;25;r~5'~7l'2!Qi8~8~~..
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39/600
$40,900
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15/950
Low-Income 19,200
Very LoW-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12/650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22/900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29/100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16/350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18/050
31/700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE' CALIFORNIA MEDIAN !'AHILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
39,300
24/550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34/200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23/850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
01
~
\ '
~
RESOLUTION NO. I? I 8'8'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (YMCA FAMILY STRESS
CENTER) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B..1:00~d ~
City Attorney
8';T"J /g;f-Lj
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ,-I
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contribl)tions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1.
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
YMCA of San Diego County Family Stress Center
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list.
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Gail N. Edwards, Ph.D., Director, FSC Richard A. Collato, President & CEO,
YM~A or ~an u~ego Lounty
Cynthia Bernee. M.F.C.C.. Program Dir.,FSC
Volker Schwarz, Administrative Ass't., FSC
Beverly DiGregorio, Vice President &
Exec. Director, Human Development Services
. YMCA of San Uie~o Co~nty
Have you and/or your officers or agents, In the aggregate, contnomed more- than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defmed as: "Any individual, ]inn, co-pal1nership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, distria or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit..
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
July 9, 1993
;i.L;() ~
Signature of contractt>r/applicant
Date:
Richard A. Collato, President and CEO
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
6J3
[c:\ WPSl \COUNClLIDISCLOSE.TXT]
[Revi=l: 11/30/90J
"
,
PENNY ALLEN
Chairwoman Board ofGovemors
President
Allen & Company
DAVIDARMSTRONG
CEO & Vice Chairman
Lanxise Sports International
CELIABAlLESTERDS
Anomey
RICHARDBIGEWW
Managing Partner
Pu1burAnde~DCOmpaDY
SooKBOWER
Intemation Business Consultant
DIRKBROEKEMAJR.
President
BowestCorporation
RICHARDCHAU
President
ACASA
MILTONR.CHEVERTON
Chairman of the Board
Cheverton & Associates Insurance
VINCENTR.CIRUZZI
Managing Director
Analytical Business Solutions
FREDERICK W. CWSE, M.D.
Orthopedic Surgeon
RICHARDA.COLLATO
President & CEO
YMCA of San Diego County
STEVECONNER
YMCA Chairman of the Board
Real Estate Investments
JAMESM.COWLEY
Cowley & Chidester
CHARLESC. EDWARDS, M.D.
President & CEO
Scripps Institutions of Medicine
& Science
GLEN ESTELL
YMCA Vice Chairman
Branch Manager
IBM
RON I.. FOWLER
President
Mesa Distributing
YMCA OFFICERS & DIRECTORS
HARRY D. FRELS
Real Estate Broker
LYLE GABRIELSON
President
Rick Engineering Company
STEVEN F. GOETZ
YMCA Treasurer
Chief Financial Officer
CaterpillarlSolar Turbines
ROBERTH.GOLDSMITH
Chairman & CEO
(Retrred)
Rohr Industries, Inc.
CUFFORDGRAVES
YMCA Vice Chairman
Managing Partner
G-Pro
RONALD E. HAHN
YMCA Vice Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Land Grant Development
WARNER HARRAH
Chairman of the Board
Stewart TItle
KARLA C. HERTZOG
YMCA Vice Chairwoman
President
TOPS Total Personnel Setvice
MURRAY HUTCHISON
Chairman of the Board
ITCorporation
PAT HYNDMAN
Chairman
The Executive Committee (TEC)
DAVID E.JANSSEN
Chief Adminsitrative Officer
San Diego County
GORDONJOHNS
Partner
Delaitte & Touche
RANDY JOHNSON
Area Vice President, Public Affairs
Pacific Bell
HUBERT I.. KALTENBACH
Vice Chairman
CopleyNewspapets
JAMESG. KENDRICK
President & Chairman
(Retired)
WT. Grant Company
RONALD KENDRICK
YMCA Vice Chairman
Senior Vice President
Union Bank
ALKERCHEVAL
President
kercbeval Engineers
DAVID E. LWYD
President
Bay City Marine, Inc.
JOSEPH MARTINEZ
President
Martinez, Cum & McArdle
ROBERTB.MCLEOD
President
Newland Group,lnc.
RICHARD W. MEADS
Chainnan
Knoth & Meads
BRUCE N. MOORE
Executive Partner
(Retired)
Barney & Barney Insurance
JOSE MUNOZ,
YMCA Vice Chairman
President
lEM,Ine.
THOMAS F. NOON
President
DR Horton San Diego, Inc.
RAYMOND PEIRCE
International MaoagementConsultant
ALAN R. PERRY
YMCA Assistant Secretary
Musick, Peeler & Garrett
JAMES H. REED
Senior Vice President
(Retired)
A.O. Reed & Company, Inc.
PAUL RICHEY
Executive Vice President
Owen.Josepb Asset Management
SYLVIA RIDS
President
Fir.>t Security Mortgage
JOHN M. ROBBINS, JR.
Chairman, President & CEO
American Residential Mortgage Corp.
8":;: 'I
DONALD ROON
President
The Roon Foundation
JAMESA.SIMPSON
Immediate Past Chairman
Chairman oftbe Board & President
Trade Service Corporation
BALLARD SMITH
Chairman of tbe Board
Premier Foods
ANTHONY SORGE
President
Stratagene
DREWTANZMAN
Senior Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank
ROBERT A. TJOSVOLD
Senior Vice President
Bank of America
RAY TWIGG
President, Chairman & CEO
SymTek
GILBERT VASQUEZ
President
Industrial Data Link Corporation
CAROL WALLACE
Executive Vice President &
General Manager
San DiegoC....onvention Center
ROBERT WATKINS
YMCA Secretary
Managing Director
RJ. Watkins & Company, Ltd.
JAMES R. WILLJAMS
President
K.eamy Mesa Toyota
ROBERTE. WILLIAMS
Senior Vice President Marketing
Sharp Health Care
WALTERJ.ZABLE
YMCA Vice Chairman
CEO& Chairman of the Board
Cubic Corporation
AGREEMENT SEllING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ,
YMCA FAMILY STRESS CENTER 'j)l.ejD
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED VSlA'I'-
1'f1-l (-A ~ P'1
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purpo~ss refgnce
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the ity of Chula
Vista ("City~ herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and CA Family
Stress Cente9 a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:lHOME'COMMDEV\I086.93 & 1087.93
g~Y-
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Child Abuse Treatment Services on the condition
City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this
agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $20,000
(Twenty Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more
advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said
expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for personS/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of personS/households served;
(b) the number of personS/households receiving each type of service
provided;
( c) of the personS/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(t) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
SVT-?
Page 2
7. Assignment The services of YMCA Family Stress Center are personal to
that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned
to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete rmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of YMCA Family Stress Center, or his/her designated representative, shall represent
the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CPR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CPR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CPR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and. shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CPR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
~
g--J-7
Page 3
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,.
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance .with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?:r-I)
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at. the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
( YMCA FAMILY STRESS CENTER)
By:P.-1 O~X-
I'
Richard Collato
President & CEO
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &:. 1087.93
![~~ 1
Page 5
"
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
YMCA Family Stress Center
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR 1993-94
1. Description
The CDBG funds will be used towards the personnel costs of
staff of the Child Abuse Treatment Services' (CATS) program.
CATS staff will provide individual, family and group
counseling services for a minimum of 250 Chula Vista
residents (children and adults) who are dealing with the
issues of child physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
Services will be provided at our main location of 571 Third
Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, and at satellite locations in the
South Bay area (generally donated space in public school or
community churches.)
2. Schedule Section
Due to the long term nature of treatment for child sexual
abuse, which constitutes approximately eight per cent of the
total service delivery at Family Stress Center, there are a
number of cases which are carried over to the next fiscal
year. In light of this, it is anticipated that the number of
"new" clients will be largest in the first quarter. The
estimated schedule is as follows:
Cumulative number of individuals seen by:
End of first quarter:
End of second quarter:
End of third quarter:
End of fourth quarter:
150
200
225
250 *
* Additional Chula Vista residents receive Family Stress
Center services in other programs and through other funding
sources.
YMCA Family Stress Center
Budget For 1993-94
EXHl8IT B
Gross Salary
FICA
Unemployment
Workers' Compensation
Retirement
Medical
2f~)tJ
$16,840.00
1,287.00
70.00
674.00
878.00
251. 00
TOTAL:
$20,000.00
Southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-Santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Rern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles county)
oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
Counties)
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITs_____________________l:~\ll~lJ[__~
1 Per
"Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20/150
Very Low-Income 12/600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16/900
"Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19/300
Low-Income 23,000
Very LOW-Income 14/400
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23/050
14,400
30/900
19/300
31,750
22/100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39/700
28/250
28/800
1~,000
38/650
24/150
39/700
27/600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29/800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
'~~3.'_~00 ~~i~I~~~~;ncome i~: ~~g- n:m;,m~~g ~.. ~~: ~~g~;:~~g,,;~g:,ng~~4,~~-,~gi
San Diego .,MSA/
'lsarW;j)reg~~unty),
. .,'_ ~__'.__':..;,:-.':..'.'~\;:i.~t:t.j:;.JJ.~~"
santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
MeA (Santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial county
Inyo county
Mono county
san Luis Obispo county
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
Low-Income 25,500
Very LOW-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19/200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
29/100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14/450
25/350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16/250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
36/400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18/050
31/700
19,800
32,700
20,450
"Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE' CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'hHILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34/200.
39,300
24/550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19/500
34/200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
~
.~~
0Q
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/ y,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND YMCA OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY (SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA SUNSHINE
COMPANY) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
AP-"tL;~
Bruce M. Boogaard
8' K. I !g ;~8ey
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
.'
. -
,
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e" contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
YMCA of San Diego County
South Bay Family YMCA
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
NONE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit,organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
"See Attached list"
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No l If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Richard A. Colla to Tina Williams
Alberta Hartung Gigi Michaels
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No -1L. If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a .unit. II
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date: ~ 14 I ICf93
\
~ -/.WJ.l-t~,a)
Signature of contractor/applicant
~1~Tj~~ L.. WILl...-tA-fY15. ('YMCA)
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
7 J(- 3 [Revi",d, 1lI30/90]
[C,IWP51ICOUNCILIDISCLOSE.TXT]
Name
Vince Acosta
Member
Class of 1994
Penny Allen
Member
David
Class of 1996
Ken Baumgartner
Vice ChaIT
Bonnie
Class of 1996
Don Blind
Member
Class of 1994
Joanne Carson
Member
Kent
Class of 1995
T. Pat Cavanaugh
1st Vice Chair
Class of 1994
J. R. Chantengco
Member
Class of 1995
Melvin Cowherd
Member
Midge
Class of 1995
Greg Cox
Member
Cheryl
Class of 1995
Updated 7/13/93
South Bay Family YMCA
1993-94 Board of Management
Study Advisory Committee
Business Address
CA DepL of Rehabilitation
678 Third Avenue; Ste. 205
Chula Vista, CA 91910
426-8720
AlIen & Company
P.O. Box 120232
Chula Vista, CA 91912
425-7606
FAX: 420-2601
McMillin Communities
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
477-4117 X217
FAX: 336-1587
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
881 Energ~Way
Chula Vista, CA 91911
421-9400
FAX: 421-0841
57 Millan Court
Chula Vista, CA 91910
420-9997 .
STAR NEWS
P.O. Box 1207
Chula Vista, CA 91912
427-3000
Tri West Group
7676 Hazard Center Drive; 5th Floor
San Diego, CA 92108
497-2552
394 Corte Maria
Chula Vista, CA 91910
422-5108
Cox & Associates
3130 Bonita Road; Ste. 200
Chula Vista, CA 91910
585-7007
FAX: 691-9854
I?J(-i
Home Address
1538 Via Hacienda
Chula Vista, CA 91913
425-1687
666 Mariposa Circle
Chula Vista, CA 91911
421-4639
11335 Crazy Horse Drive
Lakeside, Ca 91940
561-1863
2092 B Northshore Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91913
421-4819
160 Quintard St.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
691-5490
1213 Fallbrook Court
Bonita, CA 91902
425-3917
394 Corte Maria
Chula Vista, CA 91910
422-5108
647 Windsor Circle
Chula Vista, CA 91910
420-3104
Page 1
. .
Name
Larry Cunningham
Imm. Past Chair
Janet
Cwss of 1996
Chuck Day
Member
Paula
Class of 1994
~ary Lynn Deddeh
Wadie
Class of 0
Geri Dillingham
Member
Jeff
Class of 1995
Richard Emerson
Member
Class of 1995
Mike Finch
Member
Renee
Class of 1994
Belinda Fontes
Member
Class of 1996
Doug Fuller
Member
Barbara
Class of 1996
Robert Garcia
Member
Class of 1995
Updated 7/13/93
South Bay Family YMCA
1993-94 Board of Management
Study Advisory Committee
Business Address
The Plumbing Store
255 E Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
426-6820
Scripps Memorial Hosp. C.V.
P.O. Box 1537
Chula Vista, CA 91912
691-7560
FAX: 691-7423
368 Surrey Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
470-2279
North Island Federal Credit Union
P.O. Box.85833
San Diego, CA 92186-5833
656-4004
Chula Vista Police Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
691-5185
R.C.P. Block
8246 Broadway
Lemon Grove, CA 91945
460-7250
R.B. 'n' S. Inc.
2490 Main Street; Suite J
Chula Vista, CA 91911-4667
575-2488
FAX: 575-2492
Fuller FordIHonda
760 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
426-4440 X236
FAX: 691~1588
357 1bird Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
425-1172
.. ~
? k -- c--'''
Home Address
3751 View Verde
Bonita, CA 91902
475-5639
845 Southshore Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91913
482-2645
Senator Wadie Deddeh
P.O. Box 1111, Chula Vista
CA 91912
5 i 4. W arwick Avenue
Catdiff, CA 92007
944-5130
901 Buena Vista Way
Chula Vista, CA 91910
482-7352
4340 Colling Road East
Bonita, CA 91902
421-7570
Page 2
Name
Keith Gentry
Member
Joan
Class of 1994
Dr. Libby GiI
Member
Class of 1996
Robert Hildt
Member
Debi
Class of 1995
Ranie Hunter
Member
Class of 1995
Patricia Johnson
Member
Ron
Class of 1996
Dick Kau
Member
Jean
Class of 1995
David Malcolm
Member
Annie
Class of 1996
Armando Martinez
Member
Margaret
Class of 1995
Dan Mendez
Member
Medina
Class of 1995
Updated 7/13/93
South Bay Family YMCA
1993-94 Board of Management
Study Advisory Committee
Business Address
Rohr Industries
P.O. Box 878 MZ 52A
Chula Vista, CA 91912
691-3567
FAX: 691-3623
CYESD Superintendent
84 East J Street
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
425-9600
Pacific Commerce Bank
1196 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
420-5626
FAX: 425-9107
The Bald'Yin Company
11975 El Camino Real; Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92130
259-2900
FAX: 259-0242
Rohr Industries
P.O. Box 878
Chula Vista, CA 91912
691-4120
FAX: 691-6632
Dick Kau Land Company
3130 Bonita Rd, Ste. 200
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910
427-3525
Home Address
4457 Paseo De La Vista
Bonita, CA 91902
472-2347
5758 Waverly Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92037
459-8555
1910 Rue Michelle
ChiIla Vista, CA 91913
482-9966
1389-3 Serena Circle
Chula Vista, CA 91910
482-1582
4203 Acacia Avenue
Bonita, CA 91902
479-6148
Sun Coast Financial Monage CorporatiQn
625 Third Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
425-7080
Annando Martinez & Co.
365 Church Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
427-1981.
KNSD
8330 Engineer Road
San Diego, CA 92171
279-3939
FAX: 492-0193
8i(- ?
304 Camino Elevado
Bonita, CA 91902
159 Camino Vista Real
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Page 3
Name
Dave Michelson
Member
Class of 1995
Ken Monson
Member
Class of 1996
Peter Moore
Member
Lorraine
Class of 1995
Sandra Murphy
Vice Chair
Michael
Class of 1994
Mike Pradels
Vice Chair
Jan
Class of 1994
Dr. Elizabeth Robinson
Member
Class of 1996
Greg Sandoval
Member
Class of 1996
Ken Scree ton
Member
Nancy
Class of 1994
Art Sellgren
Member
Kitty
Class of 1996
Updated 7/13/93
South Bay Family YMCA
1993-94 Board of Management
Study Advisory Committee
Business Address Home Address
lake's South Bay
570 Marina Parkway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
476-04D.Q.
4-'1 I. 'O/{,":>'c
Nelson & Sloan
1980 Gotham St.
Chula Vista, CA 91913
476-8340
KCBQ Radio Station
P. O. Box 105.3
San Diego, CA 92112
286-1170
FAX: 449-8548
4540 Paseo De La Vista
Bonita, CA 91902
470-6216
Cox Cable of San Diego
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105-5486
263-9251
FAX: 266-5040 or 55
3450 Wallace Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
267 -0848
Timothy S. Mills Insurance Services, JrR814 Via Del Alazan
P. O. Box 86259 Bonita, CA 91902
San Diego, CA 92138-6259 472-0738
535-1800
FAX: 535-1956
CVESD Assist. Superintendent
84 East J Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
425-9600
P. O. Box 1381
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Southwestern College
900 Otay Lakes Road
Chula Vista, CA 91910
482-6379
2920 Baker Place
National City, CA
91950-7815
McMillin Communities
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
477-4117 .
678 Via La Cuesta
Chula Vista, CA 91913
421-1786
clo Rohr Industries
P.O. Box 878
Chula Vista, CA 91912
691-3248
FAX: 691-3671
2441 Soledad Court
La Jolla, CA 92037
456-1449
7/{-7
Page 4
Name
John Shockley,Jr. M.D.
Member
Diane
Class of 1996
Bruce Sloan
SecfTrea
Linda
Class of 1995
Pam Smith
Chair
Doug
Class of 1994
Thomas F. Spindler
Member
Class of 1996
Ric Williams
Member
Mozelle
Class of 1995
Tina Williams
Executive Director
Class of 1
:
Brad Wilson
Member
Class of 1995
Updated 7/13/93
South Bay Family YMCA
1993-94 Board of Management
Study Advisory Committee
Business Address
995 Gateway Center Way #207
San Diego, CA 92102
263-8775
FAX: 263.8793
EastLake Development
900 Lane Avenue Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 91913
421-0127
FAX: 421-1830
Social Security Administration
380 Third Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
427-1970
FAX: 427-0780
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center
751 MediQal Center Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
482- 3664
Pointe Builders
3130 Bonita Road
Chula Vista, CA 91910
691-1800
South Bay Family YMCA
50 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
422-8354
FAX: 422-4412
Wilson & Cox Insurance
249 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
422-6173
8J<'-r
Home Address
1 Grevillea Way
Bonita, CA 91902
472-0212
11147 Negley Avenue
San Diego, CA 92131
271.0637
4665 Gaviota Court
Bonita, CA 91902
479.1507
414 Camino Elevado
Bonita, CA 91902
3180 Bonita Rd. Apt. 247
Chula Vista, CA 91910
425-6667
Page 5
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
YmCA u f 5((/1 i); ~j(' Ct)(lnftt
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and South Bay r"llmily
~MCA, a non-profit Ofgani~tiVll ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
^ '
, . r" (P(fovdw'\-
P..l1\lt t){.MtH R E C! TAL ~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
WPC F:\HOME"COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
Page 1
YK-C;
"
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Sunshine Company Childcare on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $17,000 (Seventeen Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
( e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\l08~.93 & 1087.93
?5'X - /0
Page 2
7. Assignment. The seIVices of South Bay Family YMCA are personal to that
organization. The Perrormance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete rmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client seIVed: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the seIVices
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of South Bay Family YMCA, or hislher designated representative, shall represent
the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the seIVices rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the seIVices funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said seIVices before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Relicious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:'JIOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
't?/)-/!
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbvinl! of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME"COMMDEV\1086.93 &, 1087.93
?J(-/A
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and. any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TIEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
YMCA of Sit" Die!}(. ~W1'hj (5l'J,l..t~ &.~ ~,rtYl<J.)
SOUTH Bf.Y F1.MILY YMCA
BY: # ./a~
/ ,
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?jJ)-/3
Page 5
Exhibit A
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA
Statement of Work & Performance Schedule
Sunshine Company Childcare
1993-94
The Sunshine Company is a state licensed, National YMCA child care
program offered by the South Bay Family YMCA. The program provides child
care for children in Kindergarten through sixth grade. No child shall be turned
away from the program because of race, sex, color, nationality, age or handicap.
Each child is treated equally. There is no segregation or any discrimination
against any child.
CDBG funds will be used to provide YMCA Sunshine Company Child Care
to low income families residing in the community. Funds will cover the costs of
supplies and equipment such as books, games, sports equipment, first aid supplies,
craft and science projects, nutritional snacks, as well as staff wages, benefits,
insurance and other necessary operational costs.
YMCA Sunshine Company child care sites will operate during the school
year on a daily basis when school is in session. The after school sites: Feaster,
Vista Square, and Otay open upon school dismissal and continue providing care
until 6:00 p.m. The all day site: Hilltop opens at 6:30 a.ill. and continues
operation until 6:00 p.m.
Exhibit B
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA
Sunshine Company Child Care
Itemized Budget
1993-94
Salaries & Benefits
$12,700
Food/Snack Supplies
2,200
Equipment & Supplies
1,800
Training, Workshops & Conferences
300
Total CDBG Budget
?Ji)/ /1
$17,000
outherncalifornia
etropolitan Areas
naheim-santa Ana PMSA
orange county)
akersfielct MSA
Kern county)
os Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
Los Angeles County)
'xnard-Ventura PMSA
Ventura County)
:iverside-San Bernardino PMSA
Riverside-san Bernardino
'ounties)
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------I:~\lI~lJ[--~
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
1 Per
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
, 'M3.,~O~, ' Low-Income 24,600. 28,100 31,600
'very Low-Income 15,350 17,550 '19,750
:an, DJ.,ego,.M!;A}~:;,
S ah",d'i'e99\\fC'1\ln~y)i
;~...,.....;,::,:f:;;,;,c'Lt,.:,'J.<:;;,;:...6:.,.~'d~:.w..:;~p
:anta Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
ISA (santa Barbara County)
:outhern california
lon-Metro counties
:mperial county
~nyo county
10no county
San Luis Obispo county
$56,500 "Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
$55,200 "Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 Low-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
$45,500
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
23,100 26,000
14,450 .16,250
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
$27,700
Low-Income 19,200
Very LOW-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
35,100 37,950.<AO,~.SQj,;f~3j5'~O,iili~.~~i'.3}H);;,
21 ; 950 . 23 , 7 0 O~' 2 5;'4 5 o$21';-200"~'8 i'95'Oli
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE' CALIFORNIA MEDIAN "''',HILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
~)
~
~
~
$33,600
$39,600
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
$40,900
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
\ .
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
'-(vY\CA of Sel" Di o. c' Cov-n~
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Sooth Bit) Fa....ily
'tmGa, a non-profit orglllliretion ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
"
.' \~. t t (;trOti' l\. -\1 tYl .
fvJ?h c w.f\e \1 \ R E C! TAL ~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those doties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
WPC F:\HOMECQMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
"OK ~/~
Page 1
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Chula Vista Human Services Council on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $24,000 (fwenty-four Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment ofthose City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
2/J{- ) '7
Page 2
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
7. Assignment. The services of Chula Vista Human Services Council are
personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be
assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all fmancial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Chula Vista Human Services Council, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments."
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affIliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
11/<; - / Y
Page 3
WPC F:\HOMBCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee. .
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the S tate of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:'HOMFCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?fJ{ -! /
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
'{mCl\ e>-f 6QY\ DirJ=' C.Nlr1ht (0Clltt- Q,,,-~ ~tv'({"
SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMGA-
BY: a~~/~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
5')( -;20
Page 5
Exhibit A
SOUTH BA Y FAMILY YMCA
Statement of Work & Performance Schedule
Human Services Council
1993-94
The goals of the Human Service Council are to provide a forum for all
human service agencies operating in Chula Vista, to identify and define unmet
community needs, to coordinate efforts of various agencies to address unmet
needs, to advocate for Chula Vista to assure it receives its fair share of funding,
to conduct special studies to keep City, County, United Way and other agencies
informed on human service needs, to discuss opportunities to share information
and resources, and to seek outside funding opportunities. The activities of the
CVHSC have grown to such an extent that there is need for a resource
development person to help coordinate and continue all current activity.
CDBG funds will be used to allow the Chula Vista Human Services Council
to hire experienced staff who are familiar with the needs in the South Bay to
work in a resource development position. The person will report to the Human
Services Council Chair, Pamela Smith. The accounting and payroll will be
provided by the South Bay Family YMCA. The CDBG funds will be used for
staff wages, benefits and insurance for a period of one year. In addition CDBG
funds will be used to provide newsletters to participating agencies and host two
Human Service forums. The funds will be expended beginning July 1, 1993 and
ending June 30, 1994.
Itemized Budget
1993-94
r.'n~~DIT B
tb,','CJ baDI
~- 'T
Salaries & Benefits
$18,020
Rent/Utilities
In Kind
HSC OPerating Expenses
-Newsletter
-Forum
4,000
Administration
1.980
Total CDBG Budget
$24,000
?5))~d I
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
Anaheim-Santa Ana PMSA
(orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
$56,500
$35,000
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LoS Angeles County)
$43,000
oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
$55,200
Riverside-san Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
$41,100
_____________________________INCOME LIMITS---------------------J:~\i}~}J[--~
1 Per 2 Per 3 Per 4 Per 5 Per 6 Per 7 Per 8 Per
-Low-Income 27,800 31,750 35,750 39,700 42,900 46,050 49,250 52,400
Very Low-Income 19,800 22,600 25,400 28,250 30,500 32,750 35,050 37,300
Low-Income 20,150 23,050 25,900 28,800 31,100 33,400 35,700 38,000
Very Low-Income 12,600 14,400 16,200 1~,000 19,450 20,900 22,300 23,750
Low-Income 27,050 30,900 34,800 38,650 41,750 44,800 47,900 51,000
Very Low-Income 16,900 19,300 21,750 24,150 26,100 28,000 29,950 31,900
.*LoW-Income 27,800 31,750 35,750 39,700 42,900 46,050 49,250 52,400
Very Low-Income 19,300 22,100 24,850 27,600 29,800 32,000 34,200 36,450
Low-Income 23,000 26,300 29,600 32,900 35,500 38,150 40,750 43,400
very Low-Income 14,400 16,450 18,500 20,550 22,200 23,850 25,500 27,150
'~~,.3, ~O~.. Low-Income 24,600 28,100 31,600 35,100 37 950.. 40. 750j,li.3'55P~6?N.~~
very Low-Income 15,350"17,550' '19,750 ... 21,950 23:7 00.:..'25i'456~27;t-2'6'd"'8'9 0
$45,500 Low-Income 25,500 29,100 32,750 36,400 39,300 42,200 45,150 48,050
Very Low-Income 15,950 18,200 20,450 22,750 24,550 26,400 28,200 30,050
$27,700 LoW-Income 19,200 21,950 24,700 27,450 29,650
Very Low-Income 12,000 13,700 15,450 17,150 18,500
$33,600 Low-Income 20,200 23,100 26,000 28,900 31,200
very-Low Income 12,650 14,450 16,250 18,050 19,500
$39,600 Low-Income 22,200 25,350 28,500 31,700 34,200
Very Low-Income 13,850 15,850 17,800 19,800 21,400
$40,900 LOW-Income 22,900 26,200 29,450 32,700 35,350
Very Low-Income 14,300 16,350 18,400 20,450 22,100
pan Diego ,MS.~ .... ,
'(sati'i;Ol'eg~9~n~y)i
, -;'::.j--:.-:~':.;4J';.;:j.\;&_:L"...::a~.../,c....i;
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (Santa Barbara county)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial county
Inyo County
Mono county
San Luis Obispo County
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN t&~ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
31,850 34,000 36,200
19,900 21,250 22,650
33,500 35,800 38,100
20,950 22,400 23,850
36,750 39,300 41,800
22,950 24,550 26,150
37,950 40,550 43,200
23,700 25,350 27,000
~
,
'~
RESOLUTION NO.
1?1'It)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND YMCA OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY (SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA SUMMER DAY
CAMP) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
8'J....}
APPro&: m~~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO.
/7/1/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND YWCA OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY (CHULA VISTA HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL)
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form
;.L ;It.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
1)11" J
RESOLUTION NO.
I?J?~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LUTHERAN SOCIAL
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Approved as to form by
B~1:~' ~
City Attorney
&' AI- '/ g #-1
Presented by
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Wf'(; F:"HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
EXHIBIT C
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
f)
.
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
Lutheran Social services of Southern
California
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Diane E. Nissen, President
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. II
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
~~ ~.~~~~,~~
Signature of contractor/applicant
Date: July 7. 1993
Diane E. Nissen, President
[C,IWP51ICOUNCILIDISCLOSE.1XT]
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
~/lJr .3
[Revised, 11130/90J
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1993
J. Roger Anderson, Bishop, Southern California (West) Synod, ElCA
Loren T. Kramer, President, Pacific Southwest District, LCMS
Robert L. Miller, Bishop, Pacifica Synod, ELCA
Nancy Jackson, Chair
V. V. Motley, Vice Chair
Arthur Tomlinson, Treasurer
Janice Harmon, Secretary
John Donovan, At Large
Gwen Bergh
Ronald Carlson
Howard Christensen
Gene Dahlgren
Kenneth Eggers
Ted Hartman
Sheila James
Patrick Jow
Henry Kiehn
Raymond Le Blanc
Melissa Salomon
(j1L!/i
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Lutheran Social
Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
REC!TALS
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
y/U/5
Page 1
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
f
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Project Hand Emergency Assistance on the
condition City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $14,000 (Fourteen Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless
a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget
for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the. option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract. .
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
?#/t-
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of Lutheran Social Services are personal to that
organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Lutheran Social Services, or his/her designated representative, shall represent the
Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Reouirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Reouirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CPR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CPR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CPR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HOD regulations 24 CPR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOME"CQMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
2/lJ~ 7
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the S tate of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
)[/!/~6
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and. any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES
BY: /J~~J-J ~.~
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chuia Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
8)U~/
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
City of Chula Vista
1993-94 Community Development Block Grant
Statement of Work for Lutheran Social Services - Proiect Hand
The staff and volunteers at Project Hand provide food, clothing, shelter, infant
formula, diapers, prescriptions, utility assistance and rent referrals. They are
undertaking a pilot program this year to assist clients in job development and
career counseling. Almost all of our clients fall within the very low income
category, according to HUD guidelines.
All the material support we provide our clients is given in the context of a case-
work relationship, wherein we assist the clients in developing a case plan. Here
we assess the problem, set out a plan of action and define a realistic time line. A
successful case plan should result in more long-term stability and a greater degree
'of self-sufficiency for the client.
The staff at Project Hand consists of one full-time caseworker. Approximately ten
volunteers support our work in a variety of ways, from screening clients to main-
taining food supplies.
These funds will be used to support our basic emergency assistance program by
providing funds to be applied to the salary of the caseworker.
Performance Schedule for Lutheran Social Services - Proiect Hand
The numbers of clients interviewed and served and the services provided to clients
should aggregate as follows:
Monthlv Quarterlv Annuallv
Interviews 250 750 3,000
Unduplicated clients 290 870 3,480
Services provided and number of clients
Food 1,670 5,010 20,040
Shelter 47 141 564
Clothing 34 102 408
Transportation 36 108 432
We provide a range of other resources to clients as needed, but on a less regular
b_asis. These include hygiene items, prescriptions, infant care items, blankets and
utility and rent assistance.
y/l/--jtJ
.
EXHIBIT B
Funds
Salaries/Benefits
Rent/Utilities
Equipment/Supplies
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
other:
Maintenance
Insurance
Travel/conferences
Temporary employees
Client services (program grant)
Other: Interest expense
Administrative fee (10%)
Subtotals
CDBG Agreement 1993-94 - LSS-Project Hand
CDBG
$
20,000
-0-
20,000
'5/1/ /-j /
other
$
5,123
-0-
2,623
600
480
516
775
6,000
3,208
1.933
21,258
Southern California
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LoS Angeles county)
oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
,san Diego MSA,
(5 ah';;I>i'egQ:.-rcqllnty ),
: .:.-':.~,. ~;::..i:...~':~j::,:;':'::'j:,,""t<:;i.
santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
M8A (Santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo County
Mono county
San Luis Obispo County
_____________________________INCOME LIMITS---------------------I:~\ll~lJ[--~
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
1 Per
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
28,100
17,550
$45,500
Low-Income 25,500 29,100
very LOW-Income 15,950 18,200
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
31,600
19,750
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,100
21;950
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
*Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'hHILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
$56,500 *Low-Income 27,800
very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
$55,200 *Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 Low-Income 23,000
very LOW-Income 14,400
'I $4,3,900
Low-Income 24,600
very'Low-Income 15,350
$27,700
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
$33,600
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
$39,600
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
$40,900
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
g : ~ ~~., ~ ~:,l~ ~~.~~,~,gBgl;~,f{k~~
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
1
~
\
~
RESOLUTION NO. / 7 J 93
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND ADULT PROTECTIVE
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was a1located
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on fIle in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution sha1l take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
B!:;'~ T
City Attorney
8'0'/ /3'0-'/
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\CQMMDEV\1132.93. 1131.93
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
\)
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contribl)tions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
Adult Protective Services, Inc.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Malachy J. Murphy
Nancy Hitchcock
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joilll velllure, assodation, socinl club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, dtyand coulllry, city, municipality, distria or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unil."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date:
July 12, 1993
~/'<*7-~4~
Signature 0 contractor a licant
[C,\ WP51 \COUNClL\DlSCLOSE.TXT]
Ma1achy J. Murphy
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
8'--O~ 3
(Revi=l, 11130190J
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS
OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.
Guy Deeks, President
8825 Jonas Court
San Diego, CA 92123
292-1422
Anita Harbert
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182
594-6310
Marie Hood, Vice President
2834 Adams Avenue
San Diego, Ca 92116
281-8035
Susan La Flam
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
696-4322 (Work) 420-9589 (Home)
Billy Frank, 2nd Vice President
8775 Aero Drive, Ste #238
San Diego, CA 92123-1756
565-1392
Lloyd Plummer
9141 Golondrina Drive
La Mesa, CA 91941
462-9141
Evelyn Herrmann, Secretary
3863 Aragon Drive
San Diego, CA 92115
582-0528
Arthur Price, ADM
900 Alameda Avenue
Coronado, CA 92118
435-2358
Faustina Solis, Assistant Secretary
8428 Encino Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
534-4004 (Work) 278-3722 (Home)
Georgette Schell
13490 Route 8 Business
Space 126
Lakeside, CA 92040
561-3816
Thomas A. Shumaker, Treasurer
904 Rosecrans
San Diego, CA 92106
223-8825
Hedy Stelzer
1873 Loyola Ct
Chula Vista, CA
421-8206
91913
Muriel Pardee Baze
P.O. Box 541
Rancho Sante Fe, CA 92067
756-3443
Charles Bell, PhD
4051 W. 60th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90043
Seth Torres
American Assoc.
4201 Long Beach
Long Beach, CA
(310) 427-9611
(619) 222-3741
for Retired
Blvd
90807
(Work)
(Home)
People
Suzanne Carey
2424 Lone Jack Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
292-9732 (Work)
Dorothy Yonemitsu
2431 Alto Cerro Circle
San Diego, CA 92109
273-3576
Pamela Jo Craig
373 East James Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
427-4020 (Home) 475-6244
Technical Advisor
(Work)
J. T. Jennings, M.D.
11330-4 Camino Playa Cancun
San Diego, CA 92124
279-3644
M. L. Dickson
3141 Courser Avenue
San Diego, CA 92117
273-4655
APS:3/93
Yc -(
Building Committee Advisor
Rev. A. Paul Veenstra
Chula Vista Community Church
271 East 'J' Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
422-7850
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGA nONS OF
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Adult Protective
Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of wbich is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocatedCDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current Hun Income Limits
WPC F:\HOME"COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
?O-.5
Page 1
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the South Bay Adult Health Care Center on the
condition City receives sufficient COBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided
for in this agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum
of $9,000 (Nine Thousand Oollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a
more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for
said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of COBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 &, 1087.93
g-o~~
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of Adult Protective Services are personal to that
organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Adult Protective Services, or his/her designated representative, shall represent
the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 G) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
(5t?~7
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequeht declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:'HOMECOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
8'(/ - t5
Page 4
.
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and 'any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WTINESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BY: fltk.,t~ iCy P 7l;?;d/~ .
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCk~
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
5f c-(
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
Adult
Protective
Services, Inc.
.
A private, non-profit agency providing services
to seniors in San Diego County.
2840 Adams Avenue, San Diego,
California 92116 (619) 283-5731
Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
The Community Development Block Grant funds will be used to provide
disabled elderly Chula Vista residents transportation to the South Bay
Adult Day Health Care Center. Adult Protective Services, Inc. will fur-
nish the Community Development Department of Chula Vista with quarterly
reports on the characteristics of the persons served - number, gender,
ethnicity and whether of low or lower income as defined for the San Diego
Metropolitan Area. 100% will be disabled, over 60, residents of Chu1a
Vista and within the HUD income guidelines. The program serves 85 persons
at anyone time who are eligible for this assistance. However, the re-
ports will be made on the actual numbers of people served by the CDBG
Grant funds. The $9,000 will be used to purchase approximately 375 trips
per month from Handy Trans.
It is the objective of this program to restore as many disabled el-
derly as possible to an increased level of self-care so as to avoid both
nursing home placement and the breakdown of home caregivers.
(r() / jtJ
SOUTH BAY ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE CENTER
BUDGETED EXPENSES AND REVENUE
FISCAL YEAR 93 - 94
REVENUES
Medi-Cal Fees
V.A.
Participant's Fees & Donations
CDBG - City of Chula Vista
Other Income
Total Program Revenue
EXPENSES
Wages & Salaries
Payroll Taxes & Fringe
Consulting & Contracts
Purchased Services
Space Costs
Consumable Supplies
Transportation Costs
Nutrition
Other Costs
Total Expenses
6()-//
EXHIBIT B
FY 93-94
457,897.
56,590.
14,113.
9,000.
3,000.
540,600.
298,796.
83,664.
26,000.
7,670.
35,500.
9,672.
41,848.
30,450.
7,000.
540,600.
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA
(Orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LOS Angeles County)
Oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura County)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
Counties)
pan Diego MSA
(sah';;I)ieg<%YCCl~nty ),
_ _ ~.,. "."'-":'C'._""' J;:~;;'",",'"
,
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo County
Mono County
San Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
, $43,900
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------1:~1I1~}J[--~
1 Per
<Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very LoW-Income 16,900
<Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
very LOW-Income 14,400
Low-Income 24,600
very Low-Income 15,350
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
LOW-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
1~,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
28,100 31,600 35,100
17,550 19,750 - 21,950
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'hHILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
37,950 '. 40 ,750_j~43;5!l91f114G;;~?:O~
23, 700 -'15;'450c"""27;;'-200~s';1\95~O'i'i
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
ci
~
C'~
6C)
RESOLUTION NO.
I ?J14/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SENIOR ADULT SERVICES
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by Approved as to form by
~;Jt.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
~P-I /gjJ--5
r
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
Senior Adult Services, Inc.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
James J. Richards
Dr. Roqer Bailey
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: .. Any individual~ finn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any otheri:ounty, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. If
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Dffie: July 6, 1993
/1
..
[C:IWP51ICOUNCILIDlSCLOSE.TXT]
g?-3
Dr. Roger Bailey
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 11130/90]
Senior Adult Services
2860 North Park Way, San Diego, CA 92104
BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1993 - 1994
OFFICERS
PRESIDENT
Ms. Ruth A. DeLaune
9065 Edgemoor Drive
Santee, CA 92071
258-3026
(94)
VICE PRES. - ADMINISTRATION
Miss Priscilla Simms *(95)
1094 Cudahy Place
suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
(0) 276-5672 (H) 295-8445
VICE PRES. - PROGRAM
Mr. Ross Parmer
19 Port of Spain
Coronado, CA 92118
429-9946
(95)
VICE PRES - RESOURCE DEV
Mrs. R. Merl Ledford, Jr. (94)
(Joy)
3335 Dumas Street
San Diego, CA 92106
222-2318
TREASURER
Mr. Richard Ledford *(96)
Office of the Mayor
202 C Street, 11th Fl
San Diego, CA 92101
(0) 236-6330 (H) 484-0688
SECRETARY
Mr. John Hermann
1010 EAve.
Coronado, CA 92118
435-0058
(94)
MEMBERS AT LARGE
Mr. Joseph Ainsworth (96)
5858 Mt. Alifan Dr, Ste 104
San Diego CA 92111
560-1106
Mrs. Clara Baity
9065 Edgemoor Dr.
Santee, CA 92071
(B)258-3061 (H)271-8448
(94)
Rev. George Davis
2111 Camino Del Rio S.
San Diego, CA 92108
297-4366
(94)
Ms. Bertha Edington
1919 Cypress Ave.
San Diego, CA 92104
296-5569
(94)
* Denotes second term
Mrs. Michael Ibs Gonzalez (96)
(Anne)
2174 Guy st
San Diego, CA 92103
297-3869
Mr. Gary A. Gramling (96)
12322 poway Rd, Ste 128
Poway, CA 92064
538-1413
Mr. Griffith Hayes (95)
9841 El Granito
La Mesa, CA 91941
(0) 280-0500 (H) 469-5046
Mr. Arthur Herzman (95)
3574 7th Ave.
San Diego, CA 92103
(0) 298-6334 (H) 295-2992
1 'rtP~i
.'
.
Mrs. Robert Kronemyer
(Nancy)
7717 Ludington Place
La Jolla, CA 92037
283-5553
Mrs. victor H. Krulak
(Amy)
3665 Carleton street
San Diego, CA 92106
224-9475
Mrs. Evangeline Losoya
5002 Georgetown Ave
San Diego, CA 92110
Mr. Marvin J. Mizeur
5353 Van Nuys PI
San Diego, CA 92109
488-8884
Mrs. Marvin J. Mizeur
(Margo)
5353 Van Nuys PI
San Diego, CA 92109
488-8884
Mr. George E. Olms~ead
2320 5th Ave, Ste 300
San Diego, CA 92101
239-1211
Mrs. Dorothy Sumner
4291 Fifth Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
299-9035
(95)
(94)
* (94)
(95)
(94)
(95)
(96)
Miss Rebecca Wood (95)
4144 Randolph st
San Diego, CA 92103
(0) 522-8444 (H) 291-3898
PROGRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES
CENTRAL
Miss Lydia Stewart
4111 Swift Ave
San Diego, CA 92104
282-8872
EAST COUNTY
Ms. Geraldine F. Twining
1450 Merritt Dr
EI cajon, CA 92020
444-5964
NORTH CITY
Mrs. Virginia Hagerman
6255 Mercer st
San Diego, CA 92122
453-0630
SOUTH BAY
Mrs. Quentin Stokes
1543 Max Ave
Chula vista, CA 91911
420-6389
NORTH COAST
Ms. Colleen Ahern
P. O. Box 1804
Vista, CA 92083
754-9571
2
?r?----S
,
, \
AGREEMENT SEITING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SENIOR ADULT SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Senior Adult
Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
REC!TAL~
. WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Requirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
WPC F:'HOME\COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
g p ~Ir
'Page 1
"
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Meals on Wheels on the condition City receives
sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this agreement,
and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $7,500 (Seven
Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a
more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for
said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee,
have the .option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such
termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is
the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
. (f) number of female-headed households served.
Y'P-7
Page 2
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
,
7. Assignment. The services of Senior Adult Services are personal to that
organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all fmancial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of Senior Adult Services, or his/her designated representative, shall represent the
Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Reauirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOME'CQMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
8'?-j
Page 3
.
15. Drug-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
~?-9
Page 4
WPC F:'JIOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
t . , _
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and. any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
SENIOR ADULT SERVICES
7
~.
::::-
~
/
BY:
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement ~OT SCANNED
WPC F:'HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?r-/t}
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT A
MEALS-ON-WHEEIS
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
1. STATEMENT OF WORK
Meals-On-Wheels will deliver two nutritious meals
per day, five days a week (Monday - Friday) to
qualified senior and disabled residents of the
City of Chula vista. Deliveries of a hot lunch
and cold supper are made simultaneously, between
11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Special diets (e.g. low
sodium or diabetic) are provided if required.
Approximately 391 residents will be served by the
program and about 26,666 meals will be delivered
during the term of this contract.
2. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
The meal preparation and delivery program will be
provided on a continuous basis, 5 days a week, 12
months a year. Meals are delivered on legal
holidays which fall on weekdays.
EXHIBIT B
MEALS-ON-WHEEIS
PROGRAM BUDGET
The $7,500 CDGB grant will be used for Food and
Packaging. The total annual budget for the Chula Vista
area program is $201,327.
sy?~//
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-Santa Ana PMSA
(Orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern county)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LOS Angeles County)
oxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura County)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
San Diego MSA,
(San,,;Di'egci'l<::(jUnty l.
','):',.':;:-" .-" ;J.'~;;;./t:. "..
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (Santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial county
Inyo county
Mono County
San Luis Obispo county
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
'$43,~00
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS-____________________~~lll~lJ[__~
1 Per
'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
very Low-Income 14,400
Low-Income 24,600
Very Low-Income 15,350
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
28,100
17,550
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
31,600
19,750
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18, 000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,100
21;950
32,750 36,400
20,450 22,750
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'&'1ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
37,950 40 ,7Sq;!,ii~3'5SQ~A9t~SO*
23, 700 :'25/4502i<i27'!'200~9~95;Q'i!
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
~
\
~
RESOLUTION NO.
1'7195
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND JOBS FOR YOUTH AND
AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
ApproZOO~~ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
'ittp-/ /fJr:{- J
Presented by
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
~
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information m\.l'St be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
The C1ty Of Chula iista
J')bSlrOr Youth
2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
Mrs. June Brines, Treasurer
~rs. Ida Strickland, Volunteer
Mrs. Vincent Scavo. Volunteer
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Nora Sears, Director
June Brines, Treasurer
Mrs. V1ncent Scavo
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is dermed as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, mun'icipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
;!4/ cJ~
Signature of contractor/applicant
Nora Sears
Q-"" /J _ ? Print or type name of contractor/applicant
() Lt' ./ [Revised: llf30/90f
Date: July 14. 199,
[C ,I WP51ICOUNCILIDISCLOSE.TXT]
. .
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
JOBS FOR YOUTH
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENf is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Jobs for Youth, a
non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
REC!TALS
. WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations' of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reouirement The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 &. 1087.93
Y{J-i
Page 1
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Temporary Employment on the condition City
receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this
agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $3,100
(Three Thousand, One Hundred Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter;
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicityaccording to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(0 number of. female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
'i?9 -3
Page 2
7. Assignment The services of Jobs for Youth are personal to that
organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete rmandal and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of JOBS FOR YOUTH, or his/her designated representative, shall represent the
Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall
administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Reauirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments."
11. Other PrOgram Reauirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Relicious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
();-~
Page 3
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
'04J ?
Page 4
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
.
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and "any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TIEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
JOBS FOR YOUTH
BY:
k/
c;L/ , ~ --r:7 /~ y' .../
/'
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:'HOME\COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
'i5rr-~
Page 5
. '
)1
~
~
'\ 1
,
EXHIBIT A
fX"'R~r R
Jobs for YOllth
",'
statement of Work and Schedule
1. Statement of Work
Jobs for Youth will assist local youth, ages 14-22, to find
temporary employment. We will intake employment opportunities
from local businesses, churches, and households and match them to
youth who are looking for temporary work assignments. We will
also assist the youth to prepare for job interviews. The program
will serve 1,000 youth from low and moderate income households.
2. Schedule for Implementation
Jobs for Youth will operate Monday, Wednesday, and Friday form 10
A.M. to 4 P.M. at Lauderbach Community Center, 333 Oxford st.,
Chula Vista. during the term of this contract.
Budqet
Salaries/Benefits
Rent/Utilities
Equipment/Supplies
Other Expenses
$ 2,400.00
285.50
299.50
115.00
Total
$ 3,100.00
g-cp-j
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
Anaheim-santa Ana PMSA .
(orange County)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
Los Angeles-Long Beach PM SA
(Los Angeles County)
oxnard-ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
pan Diego.}'I~~'M
'(sati~Di"€g~9un"Y)i
",_-.;_,::i~:L~-;'_Lt~:&;::..(&::r~...,
s~nta Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
MSA (santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo County
Mono county
San Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
----------------r------------INCOME LIMITs---------------------J:~lll~lJ[--~
1 Per 2 Per 3 Per 4 Per 5 Per 6 Per 7 per 8 Per
*Low-Income 27,800 31,750 35,750 39,700 42,900 46,050 49,250 52,400
very Low-Income 19,800 22,600 25,400 28,250 30,500 32,750 35,050 37,300
Low-Income 20,150 23,050 25,900 28,800 31,100 33,400 35,700 38,000
Very Low-Income 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000 19,450 20,900 22,300 23,750
Low-Income 27,050 30,900 34,800 38,650 41,750 44,800 47,900 51,000
Very LOW-Income 16,900 19,300 21,750 24,150 26,100 28,000 29,950 31,900
*Low-Income 27,800 31,750 35,750 39,700 42,900 46,050 49,250 52,400
Very Low-Income 19,300 22,100 24,850 27,600 29,800 32,000 34,200 36,450
Low-Income 23,000 26,300 29,600 32,900 35,500 38,150 40,750 43;400
Very Low-Income 14,400 16,450 18,500 20,550 22,200 23,850 25,500 27,150
"$43,900.Low-Income, 24,600.. 28;100;;;31, 600':35,ioO ;,37,9,50;.?[;4Q,:;'1,~~~l~f:R~l)o-.&m.5m
..,~._. '.- ---"'very Low:"Income 15.350"17,550'."19, 750"21;950 .23;700"""25'i"45'u~~O\'O'-I~!fj~"5"~
$45,500
LOW-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
29,100
18,200
32,750
20,450
39,300
24,550
36,400
22,750
$27,700 LOW-Income 19,200 21,950 24,700 27,450 29,650
Very LOW-Income 12,000 13,700 15,450 17,150 18,500
$33,600 LoW-Income 20,200 23,100 26,000 28,900 31,200
Very-Low Income 12,650 14,450 16,250 18,050 19,500
$39,600 Low-Income 22,200 25,350 28,500 31,700 34,200
Very Low-Income 13,850 15,850 17,800 19,800 21,400
$40,900 LOW-Income 22,900 26,200 29,450 32,700 35,350
Very Low-Income 14,300 16,350 18,400 20,450 22,100
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
NOTE. CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'AMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
42,200
26,400
45,150
28,200
48,050
30,050
31,850 34,000 36,200
19,900 21,250 22,650
33,500 35,800 38,100
20,950 22,400 23,850
36,750 39,300 41,800
22,950 24,550 26,150
37,950 40,550 43,200
23,700 25,350 27,000
~
"'"
\
~
RESOLUTION NO. 171' &,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES (CASA NUESTRA) AND AUTHORIZING THE
MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~t1t~
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
8'/(-/ /g/?-1
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\CQMMDEV\1132.93. 1131.93
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor
,
material supplier.
NnNH'
')
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partJiership, list the names of all
individuals owning more th~ 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership. - ;-
NONE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
~pp At-t.::lf'n(.:lr! T,; c::t
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_
NO+ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Kathrvn Lembo
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joint venture, associaJion, social" club, fraternal organiZation,
corporation, e3taJe, trust, receiver, syndicaJe, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination aaing as a unil. .
(NOTE:
Attach additional pages as necessary)
7 (//1/ ~~
/
Date:
[C,' WPS lICOUNCn.1D1SCLOSE.TX1l
gnature contractor/applicant
",-;"ufA f3AY ComfYIllilJdv ,5eRurce5
Print or type.. name of contractor/applicant
:if'1\ - ~. [Rev;sed: l1/30/90J
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROSTER
Charles L. Pugsley, President
Agent, C.V.Police Dept.
3702 wild Oats Lane
Bonita, CA 91902
619/691-5228 work
619/470~0282 home
(1st Term)'
Ranie Hunter, Secretary
The Baldwin Company
11975 El Camino Real, Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92130
619/259-2900 work
619/259-0247 fax
(2nd term)
Jess Valenzuela
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula vista, CA 91910
619/691-5071 work
(1st term)
Charles Moore
Sales Manager
Laidlaw Waste Systems
881 Energy Way
Chula Vista, CA 91911
619/421-9400 work
(3rd term)
Ray-Etta Morrell
116 Palomae Street
Chula vista, CA 91911
619/422-2638 home
(3rd term)
Estela Lemos
76 Oaklawn Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619/420-7391 home
(1st term)
Tony Linares
Medical Director
378 First Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619/691-9729 home
619/422-8273 work
(1st term)
Reyes Franco, Vice President
453 Smokey Circle
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619/531-6478 work
(3rd term)
Shirley Ferrill, Treasurer
Program Coordinator
Metro, Inc.
2712 14th Street
National City, CA 91950
619/234-3158 work
619/267-2516 home
(2nd term)
Maria Martinez
1225 Broadway Apt. 412
Chula Vista, CA 91911
619/426-8114 home
(1st term)
Emerald Randolph
Retired, Director
Chula vista Elementary
School District
P.O. Box 17
Jamul, CA 91935
619/669-0538
(1st term)
Freddie Nesbit
Retired, consultant
California Youth Authority
506 Newfield Street
Gardena, CA 90248
213/321-9517 home
(1st term)
Brad Wilson
Vice President
Wilson and Cox Insurance
249 E Street
Chula Vista, CA 91912
619/422-6173 work
(1st term)
6/)"i
~
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and South Bay
Community Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July I, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOMlNX)MMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?f-~
Page 1
,.
,
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Casa Nuestra on the condition City receives
sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this agreement,
and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $15,000 (Fifteen
Thousand Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments unless a more advanced
payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized budget for said expenses
is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to Grantee, have the option to
terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date of such termination upon
amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program which is the subject matter
of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(aY the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:'HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
8'/f-b
Page 2
f
7. Assignment. The services of South Bay Community Services-Intervention
are personal to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement,
be assigned to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete fmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Reoresentatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of South Bay Community Services-Intervention, or his/her designated representative,
shall represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the
agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOMFCOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
6d('- 7
Page 3
,r
15. Drug-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
'gl(-r
Page 4
4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F::\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
?rf- /
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
(CASA NUESTRAJ
Provide shelter services for 60 runaway and/or homeless youth. Over
the 12 month period.
Reunify and stabilize 200 families of runaway youth.
Crisis Intervention to 500 runaway and homeless youth.
AIDS & Drug prevention education to 400 youth.
EXHIBIT B
BUD GET
SALARIES/FRINGE BENEFITS
$ 15,000
Y{--J()
southern california
Metropolitan Areas
~naheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange county)
Bakersfield MSA
(Kern County)
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
Gos Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(Los Angeles County)
Jxnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura county)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
~an,Diego..MS,.Af. '$,,4,3,~00
',san1>riie"O>l'Cc;\int)' ' ,
( " g.,.."", ,y,;
. ..!..~,~.~.::/~.-j;::tJ,.; J.\l;;';.,'.",,::,-~;-,::i!;/L...~"
santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc $45,500
MSA (Santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial county
$27,700
Inyo County
$33,600
Mono county
$39,600
San Luis Obispo County
$40,90.0
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------I:~ltl~}J[--~
1 Per
'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300.
LOW-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400.
Low-Income 24,600.
Very LOW-Income 15,350
Low-Income 25,500.
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,20.0
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,20.0
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,20.0
Very Low-Income 13,850.
Low-Income 22,90.0
Very Low-Income 14,300.
2 Per
31,750
22,600.
23,050
14,400
30,900.
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
28;10.0 31,600.
17,550' 19,750
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700.
23,100
14,450
25,350.
15,850
26,200.
16,350
32,750
20,450.
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250.
28,500
17,800
29,450.
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700..
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,80.0
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,10.0
21;950
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,0.50
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE. CALIFORNIA MEDIAN l'hMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200..
~
~
~
""
5 Per
42,900.
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750.
26,100.
42,900
29,800.
35,500
22,200.
6 Per
46,050
32,750.
33,400.
20.,900.
44,800.
28,0.00.
46,050.
32,000.
38,150.
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,0.50
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40.,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300.
38,000
23,750.
51,000.
31,900.
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
37 ,950.. ".".40l,15Q)~A~~?~Q~~.~li:,R5,Q];
23, 700"25; 450''''''27';'2.0'0-'-~8;'95'o.''
39,30.0.
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200.
26,400
31,850.
19,900
33,500.
20,950
36,750.
22,950
37,950
23,70.0.
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,30.0
24,550.
40.,550
25,350
48,050.
30,050.
36,200
22,650.
38,100.
23,850
41,800.
26,150.
43,200.
27,000.
,
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and South Bay
Community Services, a non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the
following facts:
REC!TALS
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income Reauirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
WPC F:\HOMFCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
g~-/~
Page 1
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for Graffiti Eradication on the condition City
receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this
agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $33,600
(Thirty-three Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, have the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract
5. Reimbursement Pavments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
WPC F:\HOMIN:OMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
Y~-/3
Page 2
7. Assignment. The services of South Bay Community Services are personal
to that organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned
to any other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete rmancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of South Bay Community Services, or his/her designated representative, shall
represent the Grantee in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement
and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
11. Other PrOgram Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regulations 24 CPR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WI'(': F:'HOMFCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
~I(-/,/
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workolace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CFR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
6~~ ;5
Page 4
WPC F:'HOME'4::XlMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
B~) ~/Wk
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
WPC F:lHOMElCOMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
g;f---/~
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
(GRAFFITI)
Eradicate 2,500 sites of graffiti utilizing juveniles in community
service project. Over the 12 month period.
Staff the Chula Vista Graffiti Coalition
Assist in the education and enforcement of City Municipal Code
regarding graffiti paraphernalia.
Develop and distribute Graffiti Eradication Users Manual.
Data entry of all graffiti crime reports into CVPD Tagger Moniker
Tracking System developed by SBeS staff.
EXHIBIT B
BUD GET
SALARIES/FRINGE BENEFITS
$ 32,500
EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES
1,000
MILEAGE
100
TOTAL
$ 33,600
--------
--------
gf-/?
southern california
~etropolitan Areas
~naheim-santa Ana PMSA
(orange County)
3akersfield MSA
(Kern county)
cOS Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
(LOS Angeles County)
~xnard-Ventura PMSA
(Ventura County)
Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA
(Riverside-san Bernardino
counties)
pan. DAe90,1-Il>~'tl
'(S~~:fEE~~~~l.~l~
. . ,
Santa Barbara-santa Maria-Lompoc
M9A (santa Barbara County)
southern california
Non-Metro counties
Imperial County
Inyo county
Mono county
San Luis obispo County
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS---------------------~~\l}~l][--~
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
1 Per
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
4 Per
39,700
28,250
28,800
18,000
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
5 Per
42,900
30,500
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
, '~E!~~~,.. Low-Income 24,600,28,100 31,600 ""23S1','9iSO.oO; ;2373',.79.S0'oO",i~SO...,;,,74"~-.-':1ii4.2..'..~L,?,5.0~~~"~e~.',,-'i9';~O~'"
'very Low"-Income 15,350 ....17,550.""19.,750. . Fo~U"17' 'U~ "'. ~"il
$56,500 'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
$35,000 Low-Income 20,150
very Low-Income 12,600
$43,000 Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
$55,200 'Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
$41,100 Low-Income 23,000
very Low-Income 14,400
$45,500
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200'
16,350
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
-Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
$27,700
LOW-Income 19,200
Very Low~Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
LOW-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
LOW-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
NOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN !'hMILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
~
~
~
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
39,300
24,550
29,650
18,500
31,200
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
42,200
26,400
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
45,150
28,200
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
48,050
30,050
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
RESOLUTION NO.
1'11'7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES (GRAFFITI ERADICATION) AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on me in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Approved as to form by
B~~g~ ~
City Attorney
Presented by
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\l132.93, 1131.93
gS-'1
RESOLUTION NO.
17J9Y
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES (INTERVENTION TEAM) AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
APprovr /Ii. b:,:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93, 1131.93
~r:1
RESOLUTION NO.
I?/#:j?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM) AND
AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HOD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the tirneframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
g"" I
Approved as to form by
B~'~~ ~
City Attorney
Presented by
RESOLUTION NO.
I ? ~~(?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MAAC PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, a principal goal of which is to fund projects and services which will benefit low-income
Chula Vista households; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into a separate funding agreement with HUD for the
City's 1993-94 CDBG entitlement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and allocated
CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was allocated
for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having certain services for the benefit of low-income
households performed by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a
manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required by Grantee within the timeframes
herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve the Agreement, known as Document No.
, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby direct and authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula
Vista to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take and be in full force and effect immediately upon the
passage and adoption thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter
in the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute
of the passage and adoption hereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same
is passed and adopted.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Brure:::~ r
City Attorney
B'II') /s( 1
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
WPC F:\HOME\COMMDEV\1132.93. 1131.93
Exhibit D
v
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
MAAC proiect
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
None
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the
trust.
See attached list
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Roqer Cazares, Executive Director
Roger Caldwell, Deputy Director
Rose Johnson, Human Services & Training Coordinator
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No......x If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: 'Any individual, firm, co-pannership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political
subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Date: 7/r3--I<1'3
/Yf~ r
19nature 0 contractor app lcant
[C:\ WP51 \COUNCIL\DISCLOSE.TXT]
~y/'3
Roger Cazares, Executive Director
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[Revised: 11130/90]
2)
3)
4)
MAAC PROJECT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ERNESTO AZHOCAR - CHAIRPERSON
MANUEl R. CAMACHO. VICE CHAIRPERSON
DOLORES ADAME - SECRETARY
EDWARD NICHOLAS. TREASURER
J)
Anthony Ven.g.s
Stediu", Techn~cian
90 E. lIapJ..
Chula Viat., CA 92010
2'3-5503 ("ork)
691-J219 (home)
6)
Ed"ardllichol..a
High School Co..ch
23J2 "r Ave.
N.tional City, 92050
477-5726 (hOltJe1
Ernesto A~hocar
IMPACT Director
J7'9 IIational Ave.
San Diego, CA 92JJ3
239-3"J (work)
7) Victor ~eaende~
Principal, Penn Elem.
3932 ,..1. Drive
.onit.., CA 12002
575-5"2 (work)
472-J005 (hOtH)
Dolor.a Ad&JIII
Community Activiat
250 E. '..rk Av.nu.
San raidro, CA 12073
42'-1611 (hoa.)
,) Juan .odri9Ve~
Jfur..ry Worker
22J2 'r~o.i, Apt. 5
Vi.ca, CA 12013
5t1-tln (hOtH)
727-2492 (work)
DeU in L&bao
.etired
JIOJ ~.. .tr..t
N..tion..l City, CA '2050
262-2JI7 (h_)
, ) Anni. Arroyo
rax Co.pliance Offic.r
ElIIployment Dev.lop. D.pt.
327 II. .obier Driv.
V in.., CA 12013
465-315' (hOtH)
7f 7-2203 (work)
5) .anu.l .. C....cho
re..tro 1fuaic..1 Dir.ctor
3717 ....d. Av.nu.
.an Di.go, CA '2JJ6
2'J-'262 (hOlH)
4"-67" (work)
(jV- 'I
T
"
AGREEMENT SETTING OUT TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
MAAC PROJECT
IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS APPROPRIATED
THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 20, 1993, for the purposes of reference
only, and effective as of the date last executed between the parties, between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and MAAC Project, a
non-profit organization ("Grantee"), and is made with reference to the following facts:
REC!TAL~
WHEREAS, the City participates in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, a principal goal of which is to fund programs and services which will benefit
low and moderate-income Chula Vista households; and,
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a separate funding agreement with HUD for
the City's annual CDBG entitlement and also anticipates program income from the Housing
Rehabilitation Revolving Fund; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a public hearing and
allocated CDBG entitlement and program income funds on May 18, 1993, a portion of which was
allocated for the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having those certain services for the benefit
of low income households, hereinafter enumerated, performed by the Grantee, and
WHEREAS, HUD requires the execution of a written agreement setting out the
terms and obligations for the expenditure of CDBG funds by the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed
in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of Grantee within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and condition of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations of the parties as
herein expressed, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term of Agreement. The term of this agreement shall be for a period of
one (1) year, from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994.
2. Statement of Work and Schedule. The Grantee shall perform those duties
described in the Statement of Work in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. These
services shall be provided during the term of this agreement and according to the Performance
Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. Low Income ReQuirement. The services to be performed by Grantee shall
be provided primarily to persons of low income households. A minimum of 70% of the persons
provided services shall be of low income, as determined by the most current HUD Income Limits
2)'1//5'
Page 1
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
.
for the San Diego SMSA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit
C). Grantee shall use reasonable means to determine the income level of each person or family
served.
4. Compensation and Budget. The Grantee agrees to expend City-appropriated
funds to meet bona fide obligations incurred for the Emergency Food Program on the condition
City receives sufficient CDBG funds and appropriates them for the purposes provided for in this
agreement, and the City shall compensate Grantee for said services up to a maximum of $7,500
(Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars) payable in approximately equal monthly payments
unless a more advanced payment schedule is set forth in the attached Exhibit A. An itemized
budget for said expenses is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall, on 30 days advanced written notice to
Grantee, pave the option to terminate this Agreement and terminate funding thereof to the date
of such termination upon amending the budget affecting the continued funding of the program
which is the subject matter of this contract.
5. Reimbursement Payments. Payment of those City appropriated funds shall
be made to Grantee in monthly or quarterly installments following receipt of the "CDBG Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form from the Grantee. Expenses itemized on the "Expense
Reimbursement Claim" form shall be limited to actual expenses incurred during the period
specified on said form, and shall not include any anticipated costs. Grantee shall attach
documentation, such as receipts, bills, payrolls, etc. as shall provide reasonable proof of actual
expenses incurred.
6. Reports. The Grantee shall provide the City with a quarterly report,
submitted no later than 40 days after the last day of the previous quarter, which includes a brief
narrative of the services provided and an itemized accounting of the expenditures of CDBG funds
during the previous quarter. In addition, said report shall include the following statistical data
for persons/households served during the previous quarter:
(a) the total number of persons/households served;
(b) the number of persons/households receiving each type of service
provided;
(c) of the persons/households served, the number of residents and
non-residents of Chula Vista;
(d) annual gross household income by standard categories, adjusted for
family size (low, moderate, other);
(e) race or ethnicity according to standard categories (Black, Hispanic,
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, White);
(f) number of female-headed households served.
irV/b I
Page 2
WPC F:\HOME'CQMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
7. Assignment. The services of MAAC Project are personal to that
organization. The Performance of this agreement may not, by subagreement, be assigned to any
other entity without prior written consent of the City.
8. Financial Records and Audits. The Grantee shall maintain all financial
records for three years following the term of this agreement. The City, at its discretion may
require the Grantee to provide or allow the City to undertake a complete f"mancial and program
audit of its records. Those records shall contain, at a minimum, the following information for
each client served: income, residency, and ethnicity. The records shall also contain receipts or
other proof of all expenditures made with City CDBG funds.
9. Representatives. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designated representative, shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services
rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer this agreement on behalf of the City.
The Director of MAAC Project, or his/her designated representative, shall represent the Grantee
in all matters pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to the agreement and shall administer
this agreement on behalf of the Grantee.
10. Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Grantee shall comply with the
applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in HUD regulation 24 CFR 570.502.
This HUD regulation requires compliance with certain sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments. "
II. Other Program Requirements. The Grantee shall carry out each activity
specified under this agreement with all Federal laws and regulations described in 24 CFR 570,
Subpart K, with the following exceptions: a) The Grantee does not assume environmental
responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604; b) The Grantee does not assume responsibility for
initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR 570.612.
12. Accounting Procedure. The Grantee agrees to abide by the requirements
of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall
account for use of Block Grant funds separately from other funds so as to demonstrate that the
funds are used for their designated purposes.
13. Program Income. Any program income derived from CDBG funds shall
be reported to the City and shall only be used by Grantee for the services funded under this
agreement. All provisions of this agreement shall apply to the use of program income for said
activities. Said program income shall be substantially disbursed for said services before the City
will make additional reimbursements to the Grantee. If said program income is on hand when
this agreement expires, or is received after expiration of this agreement, then said program
income shall be paid to the City.
14. Conditions for Religious Organizations. If the Grantee is a religious entity,
affiliated with a religious entity, or sponsor of religious activities, then Grantee shall abide by
the HUD regnlations 24 CFR 570.200 (j) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
and prohibits the use of funds for religious activities, and places other restrictions and limitations
on the Grantee.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\l086.93 & 1087.93
i{}///
Page 3
15. Drug-free Workplace. The Grantee shall maintain a drug-free workplace
at all times for the duration of this contract.
16. Lobbving of Federal Officials. The Grantee shall not use any funds
provided under this agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If Grantee utilizes any other funds for any of the aforementioned purposes, then the
Grantee shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"
in accordance with its instructions.
17. Insurance. Grantee represents that it, and its agents, and staff employed
by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and has coverage under public liability
and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the
form of a certificate of insurance. Grantee will provide, prior to the commencement of the
services required under this agreement the following certificates of insurance to the City : a)
Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage plus $1,000,000 Employers liability coverage; b)
General and Automobile Liability coverage to $1,000,000 combined single limit which names
the City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may
otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same
manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage").
18. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages,
liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct
of the Grantee, or any agency or employee, or others in connection with the execution of the
work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence
or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Grantees indemnification shall
include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers
and agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to
judgement or not. Further, Grantee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City,
defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officer, agents, or employees.
Grantee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by
the Grantee.
19. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with HUD regulation 24 CPR
85.43, Grantee may be suspended or terminated by the City after 30 days written notice to the
Grantee due to default by the Grantee or the Grantee's inability to perform, regardless of whether
such inability is due to circumstances within or beyond the Grantee's control. The award may
be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CPR 85.44. Settlement of any disputes
shall be based on the laws of the State of California.
20. Breach of Contract. The parties reserve the right to pursue any remedy
provided under California law for remedy in instances where contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
WPC F:\HOMECOMMDEV\l086.93 &. 1087.93
!S'v,- r
Page 4
21. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration of this agreement, Grantee shall
transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and' any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including any program income derived from
CDBG funds.
IN WTINESS WHEREOF, City and Grantee have executed this Agreement this
day of , 1993.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BY:
Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
A TrEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
::Aa:{CQ
Exhibit List
Exhibit A. Statement of Work and Performance Schedule
Exhibit B. Itemized Budget
Exhibit C. HUD Income Limits (Revised May 1992)
Exhibit D. City of Chula Vista Party Disclosure StatementNOTSCANNW
WPC F:\HOME'COMMDEV\1086.93 & 1087.93
l?V~'7
Page 5
Exhibit A
STATEMENT OF WORK
EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
The City of Chula Vista CDBG Funds of $7,500 will be specifically
utilized to purchase food, infant formula and diapers for low-income
Chula Vista residents.
MAAC Project will serve approximately 300 low income households at an
average cost of $25.00 per household.
The direct aid will be provided through the:
MAAC otay Service Center
1671 Albany Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 422-9236
Facility hours are from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday.
MAAC Project will submit quarterly reports consisting of purchase
receipts and statistical data as required by City of Chula vista.
Exhibit B
BUDGET
The following projection of expenditures is for planning purposes and
may vary based on actual needs of the low-income Chula Vista residents.
Grant
3rd Qtr 93
$1200
4th Qtr 93
$2100
1st Qtr 94 2nd Qtr 94
$2100 $2100
II of Clients
48
84
84 84
'6t/~JO
Exhibi t c
:outhern california
letropolitan Ar.as
naheim-Santa Ana PMSA
orange county)
akersfie1d MSA
Kern county)
os Angeles-Long Beach PMSA
Los Angeles County)
'xnard-Ventura PM SA
Ventura County)
iverside-san Bernardino PMSA
Riverside-san Bernardino
ounties)
an Diego MSA"
san';;Diego,fCbunty)
ant a Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
.sA (Santa Barbara County)
outhern california
on-Metro counties
mperia1 county
nyo county
lono county
Ian Luis Obispo County
FY '93
Median
Family
Income
$56,500
$35,000
$43,000
$55,200
$41,100
$43,900
$45,500
$27,700
$33,600
$39,600
$40,900
-----------------------------INCOME LIMITS-----------------------------------_
1 Per
*Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,800
Low-Income 20,150
Very Low-Income 12,600
Low-Income 27,050
Very Low-Income 16,900
-Low-Income 27,800
Very Low-Income 19,300
Low-Income 23,000
Very Low-Income 14,400
Low-Income 24,600
very Low-Income 15,350
Low-Income 25,500
Very Low-Income 15,950
Low-Income 19,200
Very Low-Income 12,000
Low-Income 20,200
Very-Low Income 12,650
Low-Income 22,200
Very Low-Income 13,850
Low-Income 22,900
Very Low-Income 14,300
2 Per
31,750
22,600
23,050
14,400
30,900
19,300
31,750
22,100
26,300
16,450
28,100
17,550
29,100
18,200
21,950
13,700
23,100
14,450
25,350
15,850
26,200
16,350
3 Per
35,750
25,400
25,900
16,200
34,800
21,750
35,750
24,850
29,600
18,500
31,600
19,750
32,750
20,450
24,700
15,450
26,000
16,250
28,500
17,800
29,450
18,400
'Low-Income Limit subject to the national median family income level of $39,700.
4 Per
5 Per
39,700 42,900
28,250. 30,500
28,800
18,gOO
38,650
24,150
39,700
27,600
32,900
20,550
35,ioo
21,950
36,400
22,750
27,450
17,150
28,900
18,050
31,700
19,800
32,700
20,450
IOTE: CALIFORNIA MEDIAN !'",'1ILY INCOME $44,600. METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $45,200.
NON-METRO MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $34,200.
31,100
19,450
41,750
26,100
42,900
29,800
35,500
22,200
6 Per
46,050
32,750
33,400
20,900
44,800
28,000
46,050
32,000
38,150
23,850
7 Per
49,250
35,050
35,700
22,300
47,900
29,950
49,250
34,200
40,750
25,500
8 Per
,
52,400
37,300
38,000
23,750
51,000
31,900
52,400
36,450
43,400
27,150
.~
. ... "'\
::-43;550:'46,350 .
'27,20028,950~
45,150 48,050 (\
28,200 30,050 VQ
37,950 . 40',750
23,700 25,450
39,300 42,200
24,550 26,400
29,650
18,500
31 , 2'00
19,500
34,200
21,400
35,350
22,100
31,850
19,900
33,500
20,950
36,750
22,950
37,950
23,700
34,000
21,250
35,800
22,400
39,300
24,550
40,550
25,350
36,200
22,650
38,100
23,850
41,800
26,150
43,200
27,000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 7-27-93
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION /73." I CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CIVIC CENTER BARRIO
HOUSING CORPORATION FOR 650 SQUARE FEET OF
LAUDERBACH PARK TO ACCOMMODATE A CHILD CARE
FACILITY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
[?
Community Development Dir.ect6r
Parks and Recreation Directo~
City Manager~ \)Il\ ~'\
LJ~
(4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No _XJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On February, 1992, the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement with
Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation (CCBHC), a non-profit developer for 20 years, to
build a 28-unit apartment complex at 1246 - 1256 Third Avenue (The Park Village Apartments)
to provide housing opportunities to very low income families and to give preference to displaced
trailer park residents of Chula Vista. The City participation in this $3.0 million dollar project
was a $350,000 loan from our Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund to help purchase the
site. The uniqueness of this project, besides providing housing to low income families is that
the tenants will have access to on-site child care and off-site job training opportunities for the
purpose of promoting self sufficiency. Final selection of tenants is currently underway and a
grand opening ceremony is being planned for early August. An issue regarding adequate space
for child care in this project has arisen which threatens the principal financing for the project.
A proposed solution involves the leasing of a small, remote, unused portion of Lauderbach Park
to CCBHC for child care use.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve:
A. The submittal of a request to the County of San Diego to amend the Grant
Deed for Lauderbach Park to accommodate a lease to the Civic Center Barrio
Housing Corporation; and contingent upon county approval of amended Grant
Deed;
B. That the Council:
1. Adopt the attached resolution which approves a lease agreement between the
City and the Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation for 40 years for
approximately 650 square feet of land on the eastern side of Lauderbach Park;
and
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Lease Agreement following the approval by
the County of San Diego of the Amendment of the Grant Deed.
9"/
Item
Meeting Date 7-27-93
Page 2
,
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Both the Child Care Commission and
the Parks and Recreation Commission have unanimously recommended approval of the land
lease agreement.
DISCUSSION:
CHILD CARE OPEN SPACE ISSUE
CCBHC originally bought the site with approved plans for a 30-unit apartment complex from
another private developer, The plans were for 17 two bedrooms and 13 one bedroom units,
In order to develop affordable housing, CCBHC applied for a $IA million permanent loan at
3% for 40 years from the state of California Family Housing Demonstration Program (FHDP)
to ensure rental affordability to very low income families, In order to satisfy FHDP
requirements, the original plans were retrofitted to a 28-unit complex of larger size bedroom
units, and the building was redesigned to accommodate a day care center for 31 children of three
different age groups, During construction, discussion between CCBHC and FHDP regarding
the child care component was limited to the building space, but unfortunately the open space
requirements were not specified until the standard agreement was executed which took place
after the buildings had been completed, The child care center must serve and accommodate 31
children in three licensed age groups, and the space set aside for the center must include a
minimum-sized outdoor activity space estimated at 2,350 square feet. The project needs
approximately 650 square feet of additional open space to meet the child care licensing
requirement. Efforts have been made to modify the requirement, but to no avail. At this point,
there is a risk of losing the opportunity to obtain the FHDP loan if the open space issue is not
resolved, which would result in much higher rents,
PROPOSED SOLUTION
On May 10, 1993, the Department received a request from the Civic Center Barrio Housing
Corporation for the City to consider leasing approximately 650 square feet of Lauderbach Park
to the corporation at $ L 00 a year for 40 years to satisfy the State of California licensing open
space requirement for a child care center at Park Village Apartments, The small portion of
Lauderbach Park which is being requested for lease is depicted in the attached schematic, It is
a section of land east of the sidewalk and south of the basketball court. This portion of land is
in a remote part of the park and is unused except as sparse perimeter landscaping, As part of
the lease agreement, the City will be requiring proper fencing and protective language in the
lease agreement, which will keep the land in good condition and repair for future use, The lease
will also include a reverter clause if the space is not used for child care purposes and will hold
the city harmless of any liability problems,
&J..:J..
Item
Meeting Date 7-27-93
Page 3
Cj
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO LEASE PARK LAND AT LAUDERBACH PARK
As a result of the annexation of the community of Montgomery to the City of Chula Vista in
1985, the County of San Diego issued a grant deed to the City of Chula Vista for Lauderbach
Park. The Grant Deed contains a provision which would cause the City to lose ownership rights
to Lauderbach Park if any portion of the land is used for purposes other than a public park.
The City Attorney's Office has advised that the City can petition the County for a Resolution
to provide a limited waiver to this provision in the Grant Deed. The San Diego County Child
Care Coordinator is assisting the City in taking this matter through the County approval process.
SUMMARY
The Park Village Apartments is an important and innovative demonstration opportunity to
provide low-moderate income housing, job training and child care to households most in need.
Staff believes the CCBHC's request for a lease of a small portion of Lauderbach Park should
be granted.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
JA/ag
{AG\A:\CCBHC,113]
DlSKNl
9~ J (q-t-f
P ARK VILLAGE APTS.
PLAY AREAS
E-<
~
~
~.
E-<
(f)
PROPOSED
LEASE
COMMUNITY BLDG.
J I
,
I ,;,~.;- .,.. .. . . .~:.
: .' ',,',~:
." '," ." . ..'.
'.
. ... .'
...,........;:: '.
. -, . .."
I II'
rI> cp ([~
, ---1. _ J '.'
'. .
" . ,',
," ..:....
.......
. -......
. . ~.
'..
r~~~~~:::.>'l'1
'..1 ,L.
I ;t~
';1
I '( '.,
I BALLFIELD..'
1 ! ,
I I, ;
I I.
n I ". .' ...1: .:
./., ". ....j L
I'~ ~-f-:-:.:--.~' : :
"... ,', . ~.
8
NORTH
NTS
. . . .. ::~ ..:'.
.....
. .'.... .',
0'
~
,
. ' . .;
" ,-
. " ,"
Cl
~
o
~
X.
o
1
II
PARKING AREA
'". . "
.-' " '.
. '"
'.' ~
:.,: .
. ..
'. '. .
.... .
::;: .
..' .
.....: . .~;
DRAWN BY:
MBH
T ITL E:
DA TE:
LAUDERBACH PARK
3.17.93
RESOLUTION NO.
J'l~OJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A LAND
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CIVIC CENTER BARRIO
HOUSING CORPORATION FOR 650 SQUARE FEET OF
LAUDERBACH PARK TO ACCOMMODATE A CHILD CARE
FACILITY OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on February, 1992, the City of Chula vista
entered into an agreement with Civic Center Barrio Housing
Corporation (CCBHC) to build a 28-unit apartment complex at 1246-
1256 Third Avenue to provide housing opportunities to very low
income families and to give preference to displaced trailer park
residents of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, an issue regarding adequate space for child care
in the project has arisen which threatens the principal financing
for the project and a proposed solution involves the leasing of a
small, remote, unused portion of Lauderbach Park to CCBHC for child
care use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby conditionally approve a Ground
Lease Agreement between the city of Chula vista and Civic Center
Barrio Housing corporation for 650 square feet of Lauderbach Park
to accomodate a child care facility open space requirement, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
4-. iJt.
Chris Salomone, Director of
Community Development
Bruce M. Boogaa , C1ty
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\CCBHC.res
9-'>
Ground Lease Agreement
between
City of Chula Vista
and
civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation
THIS LEASE, dated July 21, 1993 for the purposes of
reference only("Reference Date," herein), and effective as
of the date last executed by the parties ("Effective Date",
herein), between
1: Parties
The City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation of the
State of California, hereinafter "Lessor," and civic Center
Barrio Housing Corporation, a non-profit, public benefit
California corporation hereinafter "Lessee, '.' is made with
reference to the following references, definitions and
facts:
2: References and Recitals:
2:.1 "Subject Property"; "Premises"
"Subject Property", or "Premises", used alternatively
herein, shall mean the real property, which is essentially
unimproved, which is the subject matter of this Ground Lease
is an approximately 650 square foot area of a park in the
city of Chula vista known as Lauderbach Park, located at 333
Oxford Street, located in Chula vista, San Diego County,
California, and is diagrammatically presented as set forth
in Exhibit A, and legally described as set forth in Exhibit
B.
2:.2 "Effective Date"
The Effective Date shall be the date that this
agreement is last executed by the parties.
2:.2.1 Delay in Possession. Notwithstanding said
Effective Date, if for any reason Lessor cannot deliver
possession of the Premises to Lessee on said date, Lessor
shall not be subject to any liability therefor, nor shall
such failure affect the validity of this Lease or the
obligations of Lessee hereunder or extend the term hereof,
but in such case, Lessee shall not be obligated to pay rent
or perform the obligations of this Lease until possession of
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 1
9'~
the Premises is tendered to Lessee; provided, however, that
if Lessor shall not have delivered possession of the Subject
Property within sixty (60) days from said Effective Date,
either party may, by notice in writing to other party,
within ten (10) days thereafter, cancel this Lease, in which
event the parties shall be discharged from all obligations
hereunder.
3: Leasing Clause
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, Lessor hereby leases the Subject Property to Lessee,
and the Lessee hereby leases from the Lessor, for the term
and use, at the rental, and upon all of the conditions and
covenants set forth herein.
4: Use
Use of the site shall be only for the open air
recreational use by the tenants and guests of the tenants at
the Park Village Apartments, located adjacent thereto and to
the east thereof, at the property commonly known as 1246-
1256 Third Avenue, Chula vista.
4:.1 Compliance with the Law. Lessee shall, at
Lessee's expense, comply promptly with.all applicable
statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, covenants
and restrictions of record, and requirements in effect
during the term or any part of the term hereof, regulating
the use by Lessee of the Premises. Lessee shall not use nor
permit the use of the Premises in any manner that will tend
to create waste or a nuisance.
4:.2 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination. Lessee
covenants by and for itself, its successors, its assigns and
every successor in interest to the site or any part thereof,
that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation
of any person or group of persons on account of race, color,
religion, sex, marital status, age, handicaps, ancestry or
national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use,
occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the site, nor shall
Participant itself or any person claiming under or through
it establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the
selection, location, number, use or occupancy' of tenants,
lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the site. The
foregoing covenants shall run with the land.
5: Soils conditions.
grndlse1.wp
July 22, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 2
9~7
Lessee may terminate this lease, without further cost
or expense to Lessor, prior to the Commencement Date if they
demonstrate to Lessor that the SUbject Property contains
soil conditions, including hazardous or toxic soil, that
makes the proposed use of the Subject Property unsafe, or
economically infeasible of development. Nothing herein
obligates either party to correct an offending soil
condition. Lessor makes no representations regarding the
condition of the soil.
6: Term of Lease
6:.1 The Lessee is to have and to hold the premises
after the Commencement Date for an original term of forty
years or for such shorter period of time that the Park
Village Apartments ceases to be used as a subsidized housing
facility.
6:.2 Extensions:
lease except as may be
parties.
There shall be no extensions of this
agreed upon in writing between the
6:.3
foregoing,
terminated
Terminating Events:
the following events
forthwith.
Notwithstanding the
shall cause this Lease to be
6:.3.1 Exercise of Eminent Domain by any entity
with the authority to exercise eminent domain.
6:.3.2 Determination by the Agency to use the
Property for other purposes.
7 : Rent
7:.1 The Lessee covenants and agrees to pay to Lessor
$1.00 per year as rent.
8: Condition of Premises
Lessee hereby accepts the Premises in their condition
existing as of the Lease Effective Date or the date that
Lessee takes possession of the Premises, whichever is
earlier, subject to all applicable zoning, municipal, county
and state laws, ordinances and regulations governing and
regulating the use of the Premises, and any covenants or
restrictions of record, and accepts this Lease subject
thereto and to all matters disclosed thereby and by any
exhibits attached hereto. Lessee acknowledges that neither
Lessor nor Lessor's agent has made any representation or
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 3
~..,~
warranty as to the present or future suitability of the
Premises for the conduct of Lessee's business.
Furthermore, Lessor makes no representations as to the
possibility of hazardous materials or toxic waste being
located on the subject premises except that Lessor warrants
and represents that Lessor has not deposited any such
materials on the Subject Property. Lessee has the right to
inspect and conduct soils tests and studies as hereinbelow
provided, and to thereby determine for itself that the soils
condition is satisfactory to his needs.
9: Risks of Loss; Insurance
9:.1 Indemnity.
Lessee shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from
and against any and all claims arising from Lessee's use of
the Subject property, or from the conduct of Lessee's
business or from any activity, work or things done,
permitted or suffered by Lessee in or about the Premises or
elsewhere and shall further indemnify and hold harmless
Lessor from and against any and all claims arising from any
breach or default in the performance of any obligation on
Lessee's part to be performed under the terms of this Lease,
or arising from any negligence of the Lessee, or any of
Lessee's agents, contractors, or employees, and from and
against all cost, attorney's fees, expenses and liabilities
incurred in the defense of any such claim or any action or
proceeding brought thereon; and in case any action or
proceeding be brought against Lessor by reason of any such
claim, Lessee upon notice from Lessor shall defend the same
at Lessee's expense by counsel satisfactory to Lessor.
Lessee, as a material part of the consideration to Lessor,
hereby assumes all risk of damage to property or injury to
persons, in upon or about the Premises arising from any
cause and Lessee hereby waives all claims in respect thereof
against Lessor.
9:.2 Exemption of Lessor from Liability.
Lessee hereby agrees that Lessor shall not be liable
for injury to Lessee's business or any loss of income
therefrom or for damage to the goods, wares, merchandise or
other property of Lessee, Lessee's employees, invitees,
customers, or any other person in or about the Premises, nor
shall Lessor be liable for injury to the Lessee, Lessee's
employees, agents or contractors, whether such damage or
injury is caused by or results from fire, flood, rain,
water, steam, electricity, gas, or from the breakage,
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 4
1-1
leakage, obstruction or other defects of the land, grading,
elevation of the land, pipes, wires, appliances, plumbing,
or from any other cause, whether the said damage or injury
results from conditions arising upon the Premises or from
other sources or places and regardless of whether the cause
of such damage or injury or the means of repairing the same
are inaccessible to Lessee. Lessor shall not be liable for
any damages arising from any act or neglect of any other
tenant, if any, of the land adjacent to the premises leased
by Lessor.
9:.3 Liability Insurance.
Lessee shall, at Lessee's expense obtain and keep in
force during the term of this lease a policy of Combined
Single Limit, Bodily Injury and Property Damage insurance
insuring Lessor and Lessee against any liability arising out
of the ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the
Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto. Such insurance
shall be a combined single limit policy in an amount not
less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. The policy shall
insure performance by Lessee of the indemnity provisions of
this Section 9. The limits of said insurance shall not,
however, limit the liability of Lessee hereunder.
9:.4 Property Insurance.
Lessee shall not be required to obtain and keep in
force during the term of this Lease a policy or policies of
insurance covering loss or damage to the Premises for so
long as same remains unimproved. If the Premises are
hereafter improved, Lessee shall provide such insurance as
may be acceptable to the Lessor.
9:.5 Insurance Policies.
Insurance required hereunder shall be in companies
holding a "General Policyholders Rating" of at least B plus,
or such other rating as may be required by a lender having a
lien on the Premises, as set forth in the most current issue
of "Best's Insurance Guide." The Lessee shall deliver to
the Lessor copies of policies of such insurance or
certificates evidencing the existence and amounts of such
insurance with loss payable clauses as required by this
Section 9. No such policy shall be cancelable or subject to
reduction of coverage or other modification except after
thirty (30) days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee
shall, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of
such policies, furnish Lessor with renewals or "binders"
thereof, or Lessor may order such insurance and charge the
grndlsel.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 5
9'J()
cost thereof to Lessee, which amount shall be payable by
Lessee upon demand. Lessee shall not do or permit to be
done anything which shall invalidate the insurance policies
required hereby. If Lessee does or permits to be done
anything which shall increase the cost of the insurance
policies required herein, then Lessee shall forthwith upon
Lessor's demand reimburse Lessor for any additional premiums
attributable to any act or omission or operation of Lessee
causing such increase in the cost of insurance.
9:.6 Waiver of subrogation.
Lessee and Lessor each hereby release and relieve the
other, and waive their entire right of recovery against the
other for loss or damage arising out of or incident to the
perils insured against under this Paragraph 9, which perils
occur in, on or about the Premises, whether due to the
negligence of Lessor or Lessee or their agents, employees,
contractors and/or invitees. Lessee and Lessor shall, upon
obtaining the policies of insurance required hereunder, give
notice to the insurance carrier or carriers that the
foregoing mutual waiver of subrogation is contained in this
Lease.
10: Maintenance, Repairs and Alternations
10:.1 Lessee's Duties.
Lessee shall keep in good order, condition and repair
the Premises and every part thereof, structural and non-
structural, (whether or not such portion of the premises
requiring repair, or the means of repairing the same are
reasonably or readily accessible to Lessee, and whether or
not the need for such repairs occurs as a result of Lessee's
use, any prior use, the elements or the age of such portion
of the Premises) including, without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, all plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
ventilating, electrical, lighting facilities and equipment
within the Premises, fixtures, walls (interior and
exterior), foundations, ceilings, roofs (interior and
exterior), floors, windows, doors, plate glass and skylights
located within the Premises, and all landscaping, driveways,
parking lots, fences and signs located on the Premises and
sidewalks and parkways adjacent to the Premises.
10:.2 Surrender.
On the last day of the term hereof, or on sooner
termination, Lessee shall surrender the Premises to Lessor
in the same condition as when received, or if such
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 6
9-'11
improvements was constructed, then when constructed,
ordinary wear and tear excepted, clean and free of debris.
Lessee shall repair any damage to the Premises occasioned by
the installation or removal of Lessee's furnishing and
equipment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
otherwise stated in this Lease, Lessee shall leave the
Premises in good condition.
10:.3 Lessor's Rights.
If lessee fails to perform Lessee's obligations under
this Paragraph 10, or under any other paragraph of this
Lease, Lessor may at its option (but shall not be required
to) enter upon the Premises after ten (10) days prior
written notice to Lessee (except in the case of an
emergency, in which case no notice shall be required),
perform such obligations on Lessee's behalf and put the same
in good order, condition and repair, and the cost thereof
together with interest thereon at the maximum rate then
allowable by law shall become due and payable as additional
rental to Lessor together with Lessee's next rental
installment.
10:.4 Lessor's Obligations.
Except for the obligations of Lessor specifically
elsewhere provided in this Lease, it is intended by the
parties hereto that Lessor has no obligation, in any manner
whatsoever, to repair and maintain the Premises nor the
structural improvements, including any buildings, now
located or to be constructed thereon, nor the equipment now
located or to be constructed therein, whether structural or
non structural, all of which obligations are intended to be
that of the Lessee under Paragraph 10.1. Lessee expressly
waives the benefit of any statute now, or hereinafter in
effect which would otherwise afford Lessee the right to make
repairs at Lessor's expense or to terminate this Lease
because of Lessor's failure to keep the premises in good
order, condition and repair.
10:.5 Alterations and Additions.
10:.5.1 Alterations without Consent Prohibited.
Lessee shall not, without Lessor's prior written
consent, make any alterations, improvements, additions, or
utility Installations in, on or about the Premises. In any
event, Lessee shall make no change or alteration to the
Premises without Lessor's prior written consent. As used in
this Paragraph 10.5, the term "utility Installation" shall
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 7
9-l,z
mean electrical distribution systems, lighting fixtures,
space heaters, plumbing, and fencing. Lessor may require
that Lessee remove any or all of said alterations,
improvements, additions or utility Installations at the
expiration of the term, and restore the Premises to their
prior condition. Lessor may require Lessee to provide
Lessor, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, a lien and
completion bond in an amount equal to one and one-half times
the estimated cost of such improvements, to insure Lessor
against any liability for mechanic's and materialmen's liens
and to insure completion of the work. Should Lessee make
any alterations, improvements additions or utility
Installations without the prior approval of Lessor, Lessor
may require that Lessee remove any or all off the same.
10:.5.2 Procedure; Permits required.
Any alterations, improvements, additions or
utility Installations in, or about the Premises that Lessee
shall desire to make and which requires the consent of the
Lessor shall be presented to Lessor in written form, with
proposed detailed plans. If Lessor shall give its consent,
the consent shall be deemed conditioned upon Lessee
acquiring a permit to do so form appropriate governmental
agencies, the furnishing of a copy thereof to Lessor prior
to the commencement of the work and the compliance by Lessee
of all conditions of said permit in a prompt and expeditious
manner.
10:.5.3 Mechanics and Materialmen's Liens.
Lessee shall pay, when due, all claims for labor
or materials furnished or alleged to have been furnished to
or for Lessee at or for use in the Premises, which claims
are or may be secured by any mechanics' or materialmen's
lien against the Premises or any interest therein. Lessee
shall give Lessor not less than ten (10) days' notice prior
to the commencement of any work in the Premises, and Lessor
shall have the right to post notices of non-responsibility
in or on the Premises as provided by law.. If Lessee shall,
in good faith, contest the validity of any such lien, claim
or demand, then Lessee shall, at its sole expense defend
itself and Lessor against the same and shall pay and satisfy
any such adverse judgment that may be rendered thereon
before the enforcement thereof against the Lessor or the
Premises, upon the condition that if Lessor shall require,
Lessee shall furnish to Lessor a surety bond satisfactory to
Lessor in an amount equal to such contested lien claim or
demand indemnifying Lessor against liability for the same
and holding the Premises free from the effect of such lien
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 8
9~~
or claim. In addition, Lessor may require Lessee to pay
Lessor's attorneys fees and costs in participating in such
action if Lessor shall decide it is to its best interest to
do so.
10:.5.4 Title to Alterations.
Unless Lessor requires their removal, as set forth
in Paragraph 10.5.1, all alterations, improvements,
additions and utility Installations (whether or not such
Utility Installations constitute trade fixtures of Lessee),
which may be made on the premises, shall become the property
of Lessor upon their installation, and remain upon and be
surrendered with the Premises at the expiration of the term.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Paragraph 10.5.4,
Lessee's machinery and equipment, other than that which is
affixed to the Premises so that it cannot be removed without
material damage to the Premises, shall remain the property
of Lessee and may be removed by Lessee subject to the
provisions of Paragraph 10.2.
11: omitted.
12: Real Property Taxes
12:.1 Definitions
12:.1.1 Real Property Tax
As used herein, the term "real property tax" shall
include any form of real estate tax or assessment, general,
special, ordinary or extraordinary, and any license fee,
commercial rental tax, improvement bond or bonds, levy or
tax (other than inheritance, personal income or estate
taxes) imposed on the Premises by any authority having the
direct or indirect power to tax, including any city, state
or federal government, or any school, agricultural,
sanitary, fire, street, drainage or other improvement
district thereof, as against any legal or equitable interest
of Lessor in the Premises or in the real property of which
the Premises are a part, as against Lessor's right to rent
or other income therefrom, and as against Lessor's business
of leasing the Premises. The term "real property tax" shall
also include any tax, fee, levy, assessment or charge (i) in
substitution of, partially or totally, any tax, fee, levy,
assessment or charge hereinabove included within the
definition of "real property tax," or (ii) the nature of
which was hereinbefore included within the definition of
"real property tax," or (iii) which is imposed for a service
or right not charged prior to June 1, 1978, or, if
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 9
9-'J,/
previously charged, has been increased since June 1, 1978,
or (iv) which is imposed as a result of a transfer, either
partial or total, of Lessor's interest in the Premises or
which is added to a tax or charge hereinbefore included
within the definition of real property tax by reason of such
transfer, or (v) which is imposed by reason of this
transaction, any modifications or changes hereto, or any
transfers hereof.
12:.1.2 Possessory Interest Tax. The provisions
of this agreement may give rise to the creation of a
possessory interest in city-owned tax exempt land or
improvements. If such a possessory interest is created by
this agreement, it may be subject to property taxation
pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code sections
107, et seq., and the Lessee may be subject to the payment
of property taxes levied on such interest. In such event,
Participant agrees to pay, or cause to be paid, when due any
such possessory interest tax. This notice is given pursuant
to Revenue and Taxation Code section 107.6.
12:.2 Payment of Taxes.
Lessee shall pay the real property tax, as defined
herein, applicable to the Premises during the term of this
Lease. All such payments shall be made at least ten (10)
days prior to the delinquency date of such payment. Lessee
shall promptly furnish Lessor with satisfactory evidence
that such taxes have been paid. If any such taxes paid by
Lessee shall cover any period of time prior to or after the
expiration of the term hereof, Lessee's share of such taxes
shall be equitably prorated to cover only the period of time
within the tax fiscal year during which this Lease shall be
in effect, and Lessor shall reimburse Lessee to the extent
required. If Lessee shall fail to pay any such taxes,
Lessor shall have the right ate pay the same, in which case
Lessee shall repay such amount to Lessor with Lessee's next
rent installment together with interest at the maximum rate
then allowable by law.
12:.3 Joint Assessment.
If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's
liability shall be an equitable proportion of the real
property taxes for all of the land and improvements included
within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be
determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned
in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as
may be reasonably available. Lessor's reasonable
determination thereof, in good faith, shall be conclusive.
grndlse1.wp
July 22, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 10
~if
12:.4 Personal Property Taxes.
12:.4.1 Lessee shall pay prior to delinquency all
taxes assessed against and levied upon trade fixtures,
furnishings, equipment and all other personal property of
Lessee contained in the Premises or elsewhere. When
possible, Lessee shall cause said trade fixtures,
furnishings, equipment and all other personal property to be
assessed and billed separately from the real property of
Lessor.
12:.4.2 If any of Lessee's said personal property
shall be assessed with Lessor's real property, Lessee shall
pay Lessor the taxes attributable to Lessee within 10 days
after receipt of a written statement setting forth the taxes
applicable to Lessee's property.
13: utilities
Lessee shall pay for all water, gas, heat, light,
power, telephone and other utilities and services supplied
to the Premises, together with any taxes thereon. If any
such services are not separately metered to Lessee, Lessee
shall pay a reasonable proportion to be determined by Lessor
of all charges jointly metered with other premises.
14: Assignment and Subletting.
14:.1 Lessor's Consent Required.
Lessee shall not voluntarily or by operation of law
assign, transfer, mortgage, sublet, or otherwise transfer or
encumber all or any part of Lessee's interest in this Lease
or in the Premises, without Lessor's prior written consent,
which Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold provided there
is a commensurate increase in the rental to account for the
greater productivity or value of the Premises. Lessor shall
respond to Lessee's request for consent hereunder in a
timely manner and any attempted assignment, transfer,
mortgage, encumbrance or subletting without such consent
shall be void, and shall constitute a breach of this Lease.
14:.2 No Release of Lessee.
Regardless of Lessor's consent, no subletting or
assignment shall release Lessee of Lessee's obligation or
alter the primary liability of Lessee to pay the rent and to
perform all other obligations to be performed by Lessee
hereunder. The acceptance of rent by Lessor from any other
person shall not be deemed to be a waiver by Lessor of any
grndlsel.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 11
9~
provision hereof. Consent to one assignment or subletting
shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment or
subletting. In the event of default by any assignee of
Lessee or any successor of Lessee, in the performance of any
of the terms hereof, Lessor may proceed directly against
Lessee without the necessity of exhausting remedies against
said assignee. Lessor may consent to subsequent assignments
or subletting of this Lease or amendments or modifications
to this Lease with assignees of Lessee, without notifying
Lessee, or any successor of Lessee, and without Obtaining
its or their consent thereto and such action shall not
relieve Lessee of liability under this Lease.
14:.3 Attorney's Fees.
In the event Lessee shall assign or sublet the Premises
or request the consent of Lessor to any assignment or
subletting or if Lessee shall request the consent of Lessor
for any act Lessee proposes to do then Lessee shall pay
Lessor's reasonable attorney's fees incurred in connection
therewith, such attorney's fee not to exceed $1,000 for each
such request.
15: Defaults; Remedies.
15:.1 Defaults. The occurrence of anyone or more of
the following events shall constitute a material default and
breach of this Lease by Lessee:
15:.1.1 Abandonment. The vacating or abandonment
of the Premises by Lessee.
15:.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by
Lessee to make any payment of rent or any other payment
required to be made by Lessee hereunder, as and when due,
where such failure shall continue for a period of three days
after written notice thereof from Lessor to Lessee. In the
event that Lessor serves Lessee with a Notice to Pay Rent or
Quit pursuant to applicable Unlawful Detainer statutes such
Notice to Pay Rent or Quit shall also constitute the notice
required by this subparagraph.
15:.1.3 Failure to Perform other Obligations.
The failure by Lessee to observe or perform any of the
covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease to be
observed or performed by Lessee, other than described in
paragraph 15.1.2 above, where such failure shall continue
for a period of 30 days after written notice hereof from
Lessor to Lessee; provided, however, that if the nature of
Lessee's default is such that more than 30 days are
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 12
9~?
reasonably required for its cure, then Lessee shall not be
deemed to be in default if Lessee commenced such cure within
said 30-day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such
cure to completion.
15:.1.4 Insolvency.
15:.1.4.1: The making by Lessee of any
general arrangement or assignment for the
benefit of creditors;
15:.1.4.2: Lessee becomes a "debtor" as
defined in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101 or any
successor statute thereto (unless, in the
case of petition filed against Lessee, the
same is dismissed within 60 days);
15:.1.4.3: the appointment of a trustee or
receiver to take possession of substantially
all of Lessee's assets located at the
Premises or of Lessee's interest in this
Lease, where possession is not restored to
Lessee within 30 days; or
15:.1.4.4: the attachment, execution or
other judicial seizure of substantially all
of Lessee's assets located at the Premises or
of Lessee's interest in this Lease, where
such seizure is not discharged within 30
days. Provided, however, in the event that
any provision of this paragraph 15.1.4 is
contrary to any applicable law, such
provision shall be of no force or effect.
15:.1.5 The discovery by Lessor that any
financial statement given to Lessor by Lessee, any assignee
of Lessee, any subtenant of Lessee, any successor in
interest of Lessee or any guarantor of Lessee's obligation
hereunder, and any of them, was materially false.
15: . 2 Remedies.
In the event of any such material default or breach by
Lessee, Lessor may at any time thereafter, with or without
notice or demand and without limiting Lessor in the exercise
of any right or remedy which Lessor may have by reason of
such default or breach:
15:.2.1 Terminate Lease. Terminate Lessee's
right to possession of the Premises by any lawful means, in
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 13
9'IY
which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall
immediately surrender possession of the Premises to Lessor.
In such event Lessor shall be entitled to recover from
Lessee all damages incurred by Lessor by reason of Lessee's
default including, but not limited to, the cost of
recovering possession of the Premises; expenses of
reletting, including necessary renovation and alteration of
the Premises, reasonable attorney's fees, and any real
estate commission actually paid; the worth at the time of
award by the court having jurisdiction thereof of the amount
by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after
the time of such award exceeds the amount of such rental
loss for the same period that Lessee proves could be
reasonably avoided; that portion of the leasing commission
paid by the Lessor pursuant to the Paragraph of this Lease
entitled: "Broker's Fee" applicable to the unexpired term
of this Lease.
15:.2.2 Keep Lease in Effect. Maintain Lessee's
right to possession in which case this Lease shall continue
in effect whether or not Lessee shall have abandoned the
Premises. In such event Lessor shall be entitled to enforce
all of Lessor's rights and remedies under this Lease,
including the right to recover the rent as it becomes due
hereunder.
15:.2.3 Other Remedies. Pursue any other remedy
now or hereafter available to Lessor under the laws or
judicial decisions of the state wherein the Premises are
located. Unpaid installments of rent and other unpaid
monetary obligations of Lessee under the terms of this Lease
shall bear interest from the date due at the maximum rate
then allowable bylaw.
15:.3 Default by Lessor. Lessor shall not be in
default unless Lessor fails to perform obligations required
of Lessor within a reasonable time, but in no event later
than thirty (30) days after written notice by Lessee to
Lessor and to the holder of any first mortgage or deed of
trust covering the Premises whose name and address shall
have theretofore been furnished to Lessee in writing,
specifying wherein Lessor has failed to perform such
obligation; provided, however, that if the nature of
Lessor's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days
are required for performance then Lessor shall not be in
default if Lessor commences performance within such 3D-day
period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to
completion.
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 14
9 -- )1
15:.4 Late Charges. Lessee hereby acknowledges that
late payment by Lessee to Lessor of rent and other sums due
hereunder will cause Lessor to incur costs not contemplated
by this Lease, the exact amount of which will be extremely
difficult to ascertain. Such costs include, but are not
limited to, processing and accounting charges, and late
charges which may be imposed on Lessor by the terms of any
mortgage or trust deed covering the Premises. Accordingly,
if any installment of rent or any other sum due from Lessee
shall not be received by Lessor or Lessor's designee within
ten (10) days after such amount shall be due, then, without
any requirement for notice to Lessee, Lessee shall pay to
Lessor a late charge equal to 6% of such overdue amount.
The parties hereby agree that such late charge represents a
fair and reasonable estimate of the costs Lessor will incur
by reason of late payment by Lessee. Acceptance of such
late charge by Lessor shall in no event constitute a wavier
of Lessee's default with respect to such overdue amount, not
prevent Lessor from exercising any of the other rights and
remedies granted hereunder.
16: Condemnation.
If the Premises or any portion thereof are taken under
the power of eminent domain, or sold under the threat of the
exercise of said power (all of which are herein called
"condemnation"), this Lease shall terminate as to the part
so taken as of the date the condemning authority takes title
or possession, whichever first occurs.
17: Broker's Fee.
17:.1 Each party represents and warrants to the other
parties that no brokers, finders, or other agents have been
engaged or retained by them in connection with this
transaction, and that no brokerage fee, finder's fee, or
other commission is or may be due as a result of the parties
entering into this lease agreement.
18: Estoppel Certificate.
18:.1 Lessee shall at any time upon not less than ten
(10) days prior written notice from Lessor execute,
acknowledge and deliver to Lessor a statement in writing (i)
certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force
and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such
modification and certifying that this Lease, as so modified,
is in full force and effect) and the date to which the rent
and other charges are paid in advance, if any, and (ii)
acknowledging that there are not, to Lessee's knowledge, any
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 15
9....2~
uncured defaults on the part of Lessor hereunder, or
specifying such defaults if any are claimed. Any such
statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective
purchaser or encumbrancer of the Premises.
18:.2 At Lessor's option, Lessee's failure to deliver
such statement within such time shall be a material breach
of this Lease or shall be conclusive upon Lessee (i) that
this Lease is in full force and effect, without modification
except as may be represented by Lessor, (ii) that there are
no uncured defaults in Lessor's performance, and (iii) that
not more than one month's rent has been paid in advance or
such failure may be considered by Lessor as a default by
Lessee under this Lease.
19: Severability.
The invalidity of any provisions of this Lease as
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, shall in no
way affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
20: Interest on Past-due Obligations.
Except as expressly herein provided, any amount due to
Lessor not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum
rate then allowable by law from the date due. Payment of
such interest shall not excuse or cure any default by Lessee
under this Lease, provided, however, that interest shall not
be payable on late charges incurred by Lessee nor on any
amounts upon which late charges are paid by Lessee.
21: Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence.
22: Additional Rent.
Any obligations to pay money of Lessee to Lessor under
the terms of this Lease shall be deemed to be rent.
23: Incorporation of Prior Agreements; Amendments.
This Lease contains all agreements of the parties with
respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement
or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be
effective. This Lease may be modified in writing only,
signed by the parties in interest at the time of the
modification. Except as otherwise stated in this Lease,
Lessee hereby acknowledges that neither the Lessor nor any
employees or agents of any of said persons has made any oral
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 16
9 -.2/
or written warranties or representations to Lessee relative
to the condition or use by Lessee of said Premises and
Lessee acknowledges that Lessee assumes all responsibility
regarding the Occupational Safety Health Act, the legal use
and adaptability of the Premises and the compliance thereof
with all applicable laws and regulations in effect during
the term of this Lease except as otherwise specifically
stated in this Lease.
24: Notices.
Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder
shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or
by certified mail, and if given personally or by mail, shall
be deemed sufficiently given if addressed to Lessee or to
Lessor at the address noted below the signature of the
respective parties, as the case may be. Either party may by
notice to the other specify a different address for notice
purposes. A copy of all notices required or permitted to be
given to Lessor hereunder shall be concurrently transmitted
to such party or parties at such addresses as Lessor may
from time to time hereafter designate by notice to Lessee.
25: Waivers.
No waiver by Lessor or any provision hereof shall be
deemed a waiver of any other provision hereof or of any
other provision hereof or of any subsequent breach by Lessee
of the same or any other provision. Lessor's consent to, or
approval of, any act shall not be deemed to render
unnecessary the Obtaining of Lessor's consent to or approval
of any subsequent act by Lessee. The acceptance of rent
hereunder by Lessor shall not be a waiver of any preceding
breach by Lessee of any provision hereof, other than the
failure of Lessee to pay the particular rent so accepted,
regardless of Lessor's knowledge of such preceding breach at
the time of acceptance of such rent.
26: Recording.
Either Lessor or Lessee shall, upon request of the
other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other a
"short form" memorandum of this Lease for recording
purposes.
27: Holding Over.
If Lessee, with Lessor's consent, remains in possession
of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of
the term hereof, such occupancy shall be a tenancy from
grndlsel.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to Civic Center Barrio
Page 17
9-.2)"
month to month upon all the provisions of this Lease
pertaining to the obligations of Lessee, but all options,
rights of first refusal, and any obligation of Lessor to
transfer title to Lessee, if any, granted under the terms of
this Lease shall be deemed terminated and be of no further
effect during said month to month tenancy.
28: Cumulative Remedies.
No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed
exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with
all other remedies at law or in equity.
29: Covenants and Conditions.
Each provision of this Lease performable by Lessee
shall be deemed both a covenant and a condition, unless the
context otherwise specifically provides.
30: Binding Effect; Choice of Law.
Subject to any provisions hereof restricting assignment
or sUbletting by Lessee, this Lease shall bind the parties,
their personal representatives, successors and assigns.
This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California.
31: Subordination.
31:.1 This Lease, at Lessor's option, shall be
subordinate to any prior lease, mortgage, deed of trust, or
any other hypothecation or security now or hereafter placed
upon the real property of which the Premises are a part and
to any and all advances made on the security thereof and to
all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements
and extensions thereof.
31:.2 Lessee agrees to execute any documents required
to effectuate an attornment, a subordination or to make this
Lease prior to the lien of any mortgage, deed of trust or
lease, as the case may be. Lessee's failure to execute such
documents within 10 days after written demand shall
constitute a material default by Lessee hereunder, or, at
Lessor's option, Lessor shall execute such documents on
behalf of Lessee as Lessee's attorney-in-fact. Lessee does
hereby make, constitute and irrevocably appoint Lessor as
Lessee's attorney-in-fact and in Lessee's name, place and
stead, to execute such documents in accordance with this
subparagraph.
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 18
9~J
32: Attorney's Fees.
If either party or the broker named herein brings an
action to enforce the terms hereof or declare rights
hereunder, the prevailing party in any such action, on trial
or appeal, shall be entitled to his reasonable attorney's
fees to be paid by the losing party as fixed by the court.
The provisions of this paragraph shall inure to the benefit
of the broker named herein who seeks to enforce a right
hereunder.
33: Lessor's Access.
Lessor and Lessor's agents shall have the right to
enter the Premises at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the same, showing the same to prospective
purchasers, Lenders, or Lessee, and making such alterations,
repairs, improvements or additions to the Premises as Lessor
may deem necessary or desirable. Lessor may place on or
about the Premises any ordinary "For Sale" signs of "For
Lease" signs at any time during the last 120 days of the
term hereof, all without rebate of rent or liability to
Lessee.
34: signs.
Lessee shall not place any sign upon the Premises
without Lessor's prior written consent except that Lessee
shall have the right, without the prior permission of Lessor
to place ordinary and usual for rent or sublet signs
thereon.
35: Merger.
The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by
Lessee, or a mutual cancellation thereof, or a termination
by Lessor, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the
opinion of Lessor, terminate all or any existing
subtenancies or may, at the option of Lessor, operate as an
assignment to Lessor of any or all of such subtenancies.
36: Security Measures.
Lessee hereby acknowledges that the rental payable to
Lessor hereunder does not include the cost of guard service
or other security measures, and that Lessor shall have no
obligation whatsoever to provide same. Lessee assumes all
responsibility for the protection of Lessee, its agents and
invitees from acts of third parties.
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 19
9 ' :J. '-I
37: Easements.
Lessor reserves to itself the right, from time to time,
to grant such easements, rights and dedications that Lessor
deems necessary or desirable, and to cause the recordation
of Parcel Maps and restrictions, so long as such easements,
rights, dedications, Maps and restrictions do not
unreasonably interfere with the use of the Premises by
Lessee. Lessee shall sign any of the aforementioned
documents upon request of Lessor and failure to do so shall
constitute a material breach of this Lease.
38: Performance Under Protest.
If at any time a dispute shall arise as to any amount
or sum of money to be paid by one party to the other under
the provisions hereof, the party against whom the obligation
to pay the money is asserted shall have the right to make
payment "under protest" and such payment shall not be
regarded as a voluntary payment, and there shall survive the
right on the part of said party to institute suit for
recovery of such sum. If it shall be adjudged that there
was no legal obligation on the part of said party to pay
such sum or any part thereof, said party shall be entitled
to recover such sum or so much thereof as it was not legally
required to pay under the provisions of this Lease.
39: Authority.
If Lessee is a corporation, trust, or general or
limited partnership, each individual executing this Lease on
behalf of such entity represents and warrants that he or she
is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on
behalf of said entity. If Lessee is a corporation, trust or
partnership, Lessee shall, within thirty (30) days after
execution of this Lease, deliver to Lessor evidence of such
authority satisfactory to Lessor.
40: Conflict.
Any conflict between the printed provisions of this
Lease and the typewritten or handwritten provisions shall be
controlled by the typewritten or handwritten provisions.
41: Addendum.
Attached hereto is an addendum or addenda described as
Exhibit A, which constitutes a part of this Lease.
42: Rule Against Perpetuities.
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 20
CJ ,if
In the event the original term of the lease shall not
have commenced within five (5) years of the date. of the last
signing of this Lease, unless previously terminated, this
Lease shall be null and void.
(End of Page.
Next Page is signature Page)
grndlsel.wp
July 21, 1993
Ground Lease to civic Center Barrio
Page 21
'1.., .2 ~
Si9natu~. ~a~e eo
\
Lessor and Leseee have carefully reAd and r.Y~ewed this
leaae and each ot term and provision containeO herein and,
by execution of this lea.., show their Intor.ed and
voluntary consent thereto. '1'he pard.OIl hereby agr.e that,
At the tiNe this leas. is executed, ~e terms of this lease
are Com=erolally reasonable and effeotuate the Inten~ and
purpOSe ot LaB.or and Les~e. wi~h respeot to the pre~isv..
Dated:
V;;1 ,t;{-
, 1993
by:
Barrio HOus1n'l
(IILea5ee", herein)
,1\193 by:
City of Chula Vista, California, a
chartered munioipal corporation
, 1993
by:
'1'1111 Nader, MayOI:'
Att&St I
aeverly Authelet, City Clerk
Approved as to torm:
BrUce M. Booga.rd,
City Attorney
qrndlsel.wp
JUly 21, 1993
G~ound ~.aae to Civ10 center Barrie
P&ge 22
9-':17
PLAY AREAS
PARK VILLAGE APTS.
COMMUNITY BLDG.
J I
,
I
E-o
~
~
p::.
E-o
C/)
~Cl
p::
~~
~~.
I
;.......
~-;':'. ;'- .;,.
.' ','
:;' ..... ....:
. '., .......-.: : ~ ""-'
, ....:. .:..':
I II'
~J) cp ([~ ..
I J..
--
DRAWN BY:
MBH
DA TE:
3.17.93
. . .
.... .
· r .:~.-'-":-: ,-,-.~:: :.::.\(.,
(.. 1.:1
I j..
,. L>
. ': ::'l~. .... ""
. ., BALLFIELD
I I
I I. . .
I I~ .
I . ..
'1. ..... .: :jJ. .L:
'.- .'~-,="---,,,:'.
. ........"..
", ",
- -:.... . -. . ".
8
NORTH
NTS
.. :......:..:.....-
'. ...... .
0.,.
'."
....... . : :
..................,:.
PARKING AREA
TITLE:
. '. . .:.~
..
.....
: .~. .
:.::; :
.... .
.", .
::..:;
.....: . .~i
. ......
. . ~.
. ..
PROPOSED
LEASE
. ..
. -..
., .'- . '.
LAUDERBACH PARK
Exhibit B
Legal Description of Subject Property
"Subject Property" herein refers to that real property
situated in the city of Chula vista, County of San Diego,
State of California, more particularly described as follows:
That portion of the Westerly 290.00 feet of Lot 7 of
Quarter section 142 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 505, filed in the office of the County
Recorder lying easterly of the existing sidewalk within
the northerly 70 feet of the southerly 170 feet of the
easterly 20.00 feet of said westerly 290.00 feet.
grndlse1.wp
July 21, 1993
Exhibit A to Ground Lease
Page 24
fj,:J.'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item I t1
Meeting Date 7/27/93
ITEM TITLE: A. Resolution J ? ~/),t Approving Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement regarding Conditions 16, 20, 21, 22, and 23 and
authorizing the Mayor to execute same
Resolution I '7.a.tJJ Approving Final Map and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract 92-03, Championship
Classics I in Eastlake Greens
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public works.6!
REVIEWED BY: City Manager JCt ~ a~n (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On May 9, 1992, by Resolution 16902, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision
Map for Chula Vista Tract 92-03, Championship Classics 1. The final map for said tentative
map is now before Council for approval.
8.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The project is generally located on the southwesterly side of Greensgate Drive between Eastlake
Parkway and North Greensview Drive in the EastLake Greens development and consists of 7
numbered lots containing 46 condominium units, 6 lettered lots (A-F) for private street purposes,
one lettered lot (G) for private recreational purposes, and 2 lettered lots (H, I) for open space
and other public purposes.
The final map for Chula Vista Tract 92-03, Championship Classics I has been reviewed by the
Public Works Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative
map. Approval of the final map constitutes acceptance on behalf of the public a portion
Greensgate Drive; acceptance on behalf of the City of Chula Vista easements with the right of
ingress and egress for the construction and maintenance of public sewer, general utility and
access upon and across Lots A, B, C, D, and F, tree planting and maintenance within Lot H,
a 10' general utility easement within Lot H; and rejection of the open space lots within the
subdivision, all as shown on the final map. However, the City reserves the right to accept the
open space lots in the future per Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
I~--J
Page 2, Item I P
Meeting Date 7/27/93
The developer has provided bonds to guarantee construction of the required public improvements
(CV drawings 93-120 through 93-125), paid all applicable fees, and has provided a bond to
guarantee the monumentation for said subdivision.
Conditions of Approval which will be met with approval of the Supplement Subdivision
Improvement Agreement are:
1. Condition 16 which required the developer, as successor in interest to EastLake,
to comply with the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and Gravity Basin
Usage Agreement approved by Resolution 15449;
2. Condition 20 which required the developer to permit ail franchised cable
television companies equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot;
3. Condition 21 which required the developer to hold the City harmless for any
claim or action against the City with regard to the approval of this subdivision;
4. Condition 22 which required the developer to authorize the City to withhold
building permits for any unit(s) in the subject subdivision if Regional development
threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have
been reached or if Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the adopted City threshold standards;
5. Condition 23 which required the developer to not oppose formation of a zone
within EastLake Maintenance District No.1 (or a new district) for the Telegraph
Canyon Flood Control Channel;
A plat is available for Council viewing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
File: EY-365
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\dassicl.hnc
072193
I~"J.
/
/
;/
1;/ __- ~;~~
~/""
/ ~ VICINITY MAP
/ ~~~~SG>, NO SCALE j/
"?~~ /
/ O~~, ~
f.<J ~ "-~
~/ ~.
~! /
~I q
I G ~
I 6 A ~__~_
I I ~
I 7 I ~
@5
ZI
\
'TAY LAKES 10.
IREENS6A TE DR.
BITE
---
CHULA YlSTA TRACT NO.92-DJ
CHAMPIONSHIP CLAJlSICS 1
10:3
A T .A8TLA~. Q....NS
RD.BraNBBlUNG CDdPANY
.-0 ........ .......
S.DI_.
Calif_I. IRIl0__ (010) .1-0707
~O~CT NU~R 120~3
NO SCALE DATE 7-13-83
'I '-~
mE CITY OF CHVU PlSTA PARTY DISCLOSURB STATEMENT
Statement of dise101U1'C of ~ QWI1enbip interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
~ which will requlre dlscretionaty action on the part of the City Council, Planning Couuniaalon, and aU other
official bodies. The tonmWla information must be cliacloaed:
1. List the names of an peDODJ having a financial interest in the contract, I.e., contractor,
subcontractor, materla1suDJ)lier.
Cottage Development 'Company
Chanco Development company 'l::lIst HighlanJ"
" 4.
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above Is a corporation or partnership, list the names of an
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partriership.
Mr. Kevin Lee
Mr. David G. Gutierrez
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above ia non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any penon' serving as dire!:tor of the non-profit orpnization or all trustee or beneficiary or
truItOr of the trust.
None
s.
Have you had more than $250 worth of bUlineu transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council wlthin the past twelve months? Ves_
No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
Please identify each and every penon, including any agents, employees, consultants or Independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. .
David G. Gutierrez
Scott B. Redsun
Roqer Bhatia
6.
Have you and/or your offieers or agents, in the: aggregate. contributed more than $1,000 to "
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ Ifye., state which
Counellmember(I):
fmw111 defllled u: ~..,. iluJW(dun~jimr, _pnl'/ttel'lh;,./Din/ omtUN, tmDCitllWn. .DCinl cJvb,fl'tJlBlllJI mranWNlolt, cmpot'tItion,
tSI"'.. Inls4 ~hN, >ymIkln~ lIIis IIIld My Olhtr county. dty mtd COUJtJry, ciry, nwlliclpality, dJ,1riI:r or Dth.. pol/Hen/ mbdMs/tHI,
or tlllY mhu group 01' COIIIbiMIItm nc/in, '" " Utr;/..
(NOTE: Alracb addltional pap as necessary)
Dille: July 15, 1993
,....
~-~~
Signature of contractor p icant
Maurce Yang
Print or type name of contractor
/,,-1
1,\.,1 :r,\:DISCLOSB. TX11
.'
EY-J&~
RESOLUTION NO. 16902
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-03, MAKING
THE NECESSARY FINDINGS, AND READOPTING THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject ~tter of this resolution is
identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 92-03, and is commonly known as
CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I ("Property"); and,
.WHEREAS. the Parcel R-24/R-25 Limited Partnership filed a duly verified
application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative
subdivision map known as Championship Classics I, Chula Vista Tract 92-03, with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 23, 1992 ("Project");
and,
WHEREAS, said application requested the approval for the subdivision of
approximate ly 5.1 acres located at the southeast quadrant of EastLake Parkway and
Greensview Drive into sixteen (16) lots consisting of seven (7) residential lots
containin9 46 single family condominium dwellings, one (1) recreational lot, two
(2) open space lots, and six (6) street/easement lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zone, and General Development Plan ("GPA") previously
approved by the City Counci1 on AU9ust 24, 19S2 by Resolution No. 10996 ("GPA
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
GPA, relied in part on the EastLake Final Environmental Impact Report No. 81-03,
SCH No. S0121007 ("Program EIR 81-03"), a program environmental impact report as
same is defined in CEQA Guideline Section 1516S; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
General Development Plan II, Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Subdivision Hap ("PCS-SS-03")("SPA Plan") previously approved by the Cit,Y Council
on July IS, 19S9 by Resolution Nos. 15198-15200 ("SPA Plan Resolution") wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA Plan, relied in
part on the "EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and EastLake
Tra il s Pre-Zone and Annexation Fi na 1 Supp 1 ementa 1 Envi ronmenta 1 llIlpact Report No.
86-04", SCH No. 86052S03 ("FSEIR 86-04"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of an
EastLake II General Development Plan Amendment, and SPA Plan Amendment ("Density
Transfer" PCH-92-03) previously approved by the City Council on May 19,1992 by
Resolution Nos. 16628 and 16629 ("Density Transfer Resolution") wherein the City
Council, in the environmental evaluation of said Density Transfer, relied in part
on the Negative Declaration for IS-92-04, ("Neg. Dee,"); and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of
/tJ~5
Resolution No. 16902
Page 2
: i
development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 81-03, FSEIR 86-04 and
Negathe Declaration that ;s virtually identical in all relevant respects,
including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation corridors,
etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and,
WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
proposed Tentative Map and determined that it is in substantial conformance with
the GDP II, SPA Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-88-03 as ~dified by the
Density Transfer, therefore no new environmental documents are necessary; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on October 19, 1992, voted to recommend that the City Council approve the
Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and conditions listed below and
readopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given by its publication a newspaper of general circulation in
the City and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., November 10, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA Finding re Previously Examined Effects.
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as a later activity
to that evaluated in the Program EIR 81-03, FSEIR 86-04, and the
Negative Declaration for IS-92-04 would have no new effects that
were not exami ned in the precedi ng documents (Gui de 1i ne 15168
(c)(1)).
SECTION 2. CEQA Finding re Project Within Scope of Prior Program EIR.
The City Council hereby finds that (1) there wer~ no changes in the
Project from the Program EIR,the FSEIR and the Neg. Dec. which would
require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project
;s undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information
of substantial importance to the project has become available since
the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that therefore,
no new effects could occur and no new mitigation ~asures will be
required in addition to those already in existence and currently
made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City
Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope
of the project covered by the Program EIR, FSEIR and the Neg. Dec.,
IIJ "I,
Resolution No. 16902
Page 3
and therefore, no new environmental documents are required
(Guideline 15168(c)(2)).
SECTION 3. Incorporation of All Feasible Mitigation Measures and Alternatives.
The City Council does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as condi-
tions for all approvals herein granted all .itigation ~asures and
alternatives, if any, which it has detenlined, by the findings made
in the GPA Resolution, the SPA Resolution, and the Density Transfer
Resolution, to be feasible in the approval of the General
Development Plan, the SPA Plan, and the Density Transfer
respect ive 1 y .
SECTION 4. Notice with Later Activities.
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by
law, that this Project .15 an activity within the scope of the
program approved earlier in the GPA Resolution, the SPA Plan
Resolution, and the Density Transfer Resolution, and the Program
EIR, FSEIR, and the Neg. Dec. adequately describe the activity for
the purposes of CEQA (Guideline 15168 (e)).
SECTION 5. General Plan Findings--Conformance to the General Plan.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, in the Subdivision Map
Act, finds that the tentative subdivision map as conditioned herein
for CHAMPIONSHIP ClASSICS I, Chula Vista Tract No. 92-03, is in
conformance with all the various elements of the City's General
Plan, the EastLake Greens General Development Plan and Sectional
Planning Area Plan based on the following:
a. Land Use - Based on the provisions of the General Plan pertaining
to the transfer (Section 6.2) and clustering (Section 6.3) of
residential units within EastLake Greens, the SPA Plan, as
amended pursuant to PCM-92-03, was deemed to be consistent with
the General Plan. Said amendments allowed for a yield of 10
dwelling units per acre on the project site. However, when
computed for the whole of EastLake Greens, the density ~ets
General Plan requirements of low-~dium density (3-6 du/ac) per
General Plan requirements.
b. Circulation - The project has a circular private street system.
These streets ~et minimum City requirements for such streets.
The project will not adversely effect the Circulation Element in
that the adjoining street system was designed to handle the
anticipated flow of traffic resulting from this and other area
projects.
/d"'')
Resolution No. 16902
Page 4
..
c. Housing - The type of housing being proposed is detached single-
family condominiums. This project meets the goals, objectives
and policies of the Housing Element in that Goals 1 and 4,
Objectives 1 and 3 and Policies 2, 6, 7 and 8 are implemented by
this project.
d. Conservation - The adoption of EIR-81-03, EIR-86-04 and the
Negative Declaration for IS-92-04 satisfy the goals and policies
of the Conservation Element of the General Plan in that
mitigation measures listed in the forgoing documents are
applicable to this project.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The recreational lot in this
project meets the mini park criteria of Section 4.4 of t~e Parks
and Recreation Element and therefore implements this General Plan
Element.
f. Seismic Safety - There are no known active faults within the
vicinity. The closest potentially active fault is located
approximately two miles to the west of the site.
g. Safety - The project meets the threshold standards of the Growth
Management Plan. A temporary fire station will be constructed at
the northeast corner of Otay Lakes (Telegraph Canyon) Road and
Lane Avenue at a distance of approximately three-quarters of a
mile.
h. Noise - A noise attenuation wall is required along the all street
boundaries of the open space lot separating the residential
buildings from the EastLake Parkway corridor, North Greensview
Drive and Greensgate Drive. This wall must meet minimum City
standards for noise attenuation.
i. Scenic Highway - Eastlake Parkway is designated a Scenic Highway
in Section 8.1 of the Land Use Element. An enhanced landscape
plan showing treatment appropriate for such a highway is required
as part of the conditions of approval. In addition, the project
meets the requirements of Section 8.2 of the Housing Element
pertaining to implementation design review of projects adjacent
to scenic highways. (The design review of this project was
accomplished under DRC-93-01.)
j. Bicycle Routes - When the street system in EastLake Greens was
originally constructed, Eastlake Parkway had bicycle lanes
included and thus met the requirements of the Circulation Element
pertaining to the bicycle plan.
k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are proposed on the site.
The project is required to pay RCT fees prior to the issuance of
building permits.
111-8
Resolution No. 16902
Page 5
SECTION 6. Subdivision Map Act Findings.
a. Balance of Housing ,Needs and Public Service Needs.
Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this
approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced
those needs against the public service needs of the residents of
the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
b. Opportunities for Natural Heating and Cooling Incorporated.
The configuration, orientation and topography of the site
partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by
Government Code Section 66473.1. '
c. Finding re Suitability for Residential Development.
The site is physically suitable for residential development and
the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City
for such projects.
SECTION 7. Conditional Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map.
The City Council does hereby approve, subject to the following
conditions, the tentative subdivision lnap for CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS
I, Chula Vista Tract 92-03. Unless otherwise specified, all
Conditions and Code Requirements shall be fully completed to the
City's satisfaction prior to the approval of the First Final Map.
Unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate
easement, rather than fee title. The Developer shall:
General/Preliminarv.
./'11 ,,!"~~
..Jc~ 0"'-- 1<. 1.
1='''''- pi 11,"'.11 'l
::,<..<I'{ 13} /9CfS
Satisfy all mitigation measures required before Final Map
approval by Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
EastLake Greens (FSEIR) 86-04 and Neg. Dec. for IS-92-04,
which mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into this
Resolution by reference. Any such measures not satisfied by
a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project
design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning. -Mitigation measures shall be monitored
via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction
with the FSEIR and Neg. Dee.. Modification of the sequence of
.itigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of
Planning should changes in circumstances warrant such
revision.
I~'~
Resolution No. 16902
Page 6
L_,' ~d 2
;.)<'='"" . -i4 ~ .
pa, \'~ (if. ILj3
-Su.ly 1<>, ,q
Unless otherwise conditioned, cOlllply with, reNin in
compliance with, and implement, the terms, conditions and
provisions of the EastLake II General Development Plan,
EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, EastLake Greens
Planned Community District Regulations, the EastLake
Development Agreement, the Water Conservation Plan and Air
Quality Improvement Plan for EastLake Greens, the Regional Air
Quality Plan, Design Guidelines and the Public Facilities
Financing Plan approved by the Council ("Plans") as are
applicable to the property which is the subject lIlatter of this
Tentative Map, prior to approval of the Final Map, or shall
have entered into an agreement with the City, providing the
City with such security (including recordation of covenants
running with the land) and implementation procedures as the
City may require, assuring that, after approval of the Final
Map, the developer shall continue to comply with, remain in
compliance with, and implement such Plans. Developer shall
agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water
Conservation Plan or Air Quality Improvement Plan constitutes
an improper subsequent imposition of the condition.
I'
,
3. Pay fees app li cab 1 e to the project, in accordance wi th the
110 ~Q~ City Code and Council Policy, including but not limited to:
PO-,a.. oJ: ~ <",","a. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
6JVla..yt"-~ o. "-
) .6LA,ld;~~ b.
p.ii'<::rt\' t.
I.
II
A\,I;>~OV".e J. 4.
\; Q \M'\'~~
"'J (00
f~)~:<2~
. /}//4/1:!J
The Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact
Fees (DIF). A portion of the Transportation DIF is funded
'through Assessment District 90-3. The balance due to
increased density is payable.
c. Signal Participation Fees
d. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to
sewer connection fees.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance
of building permits. The developer is advised that fees
periodically change, and that it is the developer's
responsibility to contact the appropriate City department or
government agency to ascertain the amount of a given fee due
at the time of collection.
CC IR's.
File with the City of Chula Vista a copy of the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCIR's) applicable to
the subject property. The CCIR's shall include, among others,
provisions for the:
a. Formation of a home owner's association (HOA).
It) "If)
Resolution No. 16902
Page 7
b. HOA responsibilities to uintain 411 private driveways,
common areas and drainage systems.
c. Prohibition of television antennas, garage
parking outside of designated areas,
recreational vehicles and boat trailers.
conversions,
parking of
d. Inclusion of the City of Chula Vista named as a party to
said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms
and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any
owner within the subdivision.
DDen SDace.
'6O-b,~ <;c; eel b'-( ~Q!'\D\I~\
nO 16<.- [lc<!.Q~"- fulC~ 5. Construct a noise attenuation wall along the length of the
/~ - ::), elc, v15 1l- projects' frontage with Eastlake Parkway, North Greensview
,.,-,Ij<l_' Lv Drive and Greensgate Drive, as required per EIR-86-04. Said
noise attenuation wall shall be located within the open space
lot. The design and location of said noise attenuation wall
is subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning.
Include any open space lot in the EastLake II Community
Association maintenance responsibility area.
60 L 5 :i:' , eel ,1')'1 l-ebb..,,,, - 6
_ ~o { -eCl .
.\' ,'0>" L o..si!. ct /:: "''I <>'
T I jC / --'
_,Vi 'f I
Dzcl, \ ('cdo -",J ",' 7.
Ft~'AL- t-(/H'
WIU- BE" '6. JtTI5Flt?D 8.
AT '55',V+NC5 6'F ,:
" D "I~ PeRMIT ,-
(JuIL 'N~
-:<:
." JlI ...-~.>u\o~ - <.c..<-<r.............. .
;:~'v('r ,- '.
Con'Cf5LICh, "f' oS I",~~cv""..,.g.~
_L h -- ahQ.....5~' I
",-"II nD'- "L ~ J
DlA P""5'(\j Vl,,-" ~~I:c);eJ993
fJl ~ \GL<'A' "3 ' I
Make an offer of dedication
space lots for potential
Maintenance District No.1.
in fee to the City of all open
incorporation into EastLake
Submit plans showing the design and loco ~ion of a project
identification sign to the Director of Planning for review and
approval. The identification sign shall contain the name of
the complex and a location map, shall be internally lit and
not exceed the maximum dimensions as authorized in Chapter
19.60 of the Municipal Code. The sign shall be placed
prominently at the entrance. The design and materials shall
be complementary to and compatible with the approved
architectural design of the project.
Submit a phasing plan to the Planning Department prior to
~irst final map approval. Said phasing plan is subject to
approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning.
The phasing plan shall consist of:
a. A site plan showing on it the lot lines and numbers, the
phase lines and numbers. number of dwelling units in each
phase. number of covered and open parking spaces in each
phase. and public and private i~rovelents to be installed
for each phase. The site plan for each phase shall show
parking and other illlprovements in sufficient numbers to
serve that phase. The recreation lot shall be included in
and constructed with the first phase.
ItJ --JJ
Resolution No. 16902
Page 8
~UbM:t:bd (10.
el. eLp?~O V"'"
~ci-t f.lJu, Id; "5
f'1 aJ\S
Streets.
6I'lb,s~; ec:\ !!hf
J'Wp"o va. \ o+'
I pa.OIl-e"'" <,,,d:.
K 'PI<<-"S
11.
6a~.5-+'; e,,\ 12.
l? a.rf\'"O,^,,-1 cA
J.-'~.,'\ else Q p.e- ~VlcI
1 JVI P \6 y' ^"" ""'pJ'a. rP
;$a1o ; :;~i <ed b:1 13.
CLP'?\"",I)ll<o..l c.v
I mP'lov-l!.WI......i: -pkMS
b. A table showing the phase number, the lots included in the
phase, the number of units in each phase, the number of
open and covered parking spaces in each phase, the
cumulative parking and the required parking for each phase.
Submit a comprehensive landscape plan for review and approval
of the City Landscape Architect prior to approval of the first
Final Map. Submit comprehensive, detailed landscape and
irrigation plans, erosion control plans and detailed water
..nagement guidelines for all landscape irrigation in
accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual for the
associated landscaping in each Final Map. The landscaping
format within the ~roject shall be in substantial conformance
with Section 6.4 (General Landscape Concept) of the EastLake
Greens SPA.
OJ
Design and construct all streets to meet the City standards
for private streets, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Submit improvement plans for prior approval by the City
Engineer detailing the horizontal and vertical alignment of
the center line of said streets.
Install decorative concrete paving, signing or other
improvements required by the City Engineer to identify the
boundary between the public and private roadway at the
entrance to the proposed development on South Greensview
Dri ve. Decorati ve pavi ng shall be located enti rely withi n
private property.
Design and construct an entrance to the proposed development
which is a minimum 73 ft. wide, curb-to-curb, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Water and Sewers.
~i5~i e.d b'l 14
,'\J)"'>OV'(l..\ 0;2 . Guarantee and construct public sewers as shown on the
(Tn Ii -1-1"""" tentative map.
I KP~ 5"' 4--56~ OS
PI-J4-)-.:> ~ 15
6-f:~ MM' .
DI}) '8 to
6fPnSi=/FD 8'116.
~ p,q.IO o~.3
Sl/lfy 9/19
~ /hl~ I==tl"i) ~ 17.
f}-\ll'gov A-i- ~T
t /-1P f-D1I0rpJ..,J4-1::>5
Grant on the final map access and ~intenance easements for
all sewer facilities.
As successor in interest to EastLake, comply with the
Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer Monitoring and Gravity Basin
Usage Agreement approved by Resolution 15449, and pay
applicable basin fees as ~y be adopted by City Council as
provided in said agreement.
Loop the water system out of the project site to EastLake
Parkway or Greens9ate Orive as required by the Otay Water
J f) ;/ )..
Resolution No. 16902
Page 9
District in their letter of August 13, 1992, or as otherwise
directed by Dtay Water District.
Gradina and Drainaae.
/-)~b-; 5\;'; e,_~ b~ af'f'\'OJ<>-\
"D\' &RA{ll Nb- PLfW -: . 1~.: Submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of
6-f.fi-O, 1'0& PGlh'ul 1.J~'-dJ.tvCC any grading plans.
Aareements. Enter into (a) supplemental subdivision agreement(s)
to:
5';TIS 'Fief:' e'J FXI:-Ci.-<}I010
. r:' SC-{FP,-~~-rv~l- 19.
I). f16--r:~I'4 5'",-,.,
Hold the City harmless from any liability for ~rosion,
siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulting from this
project.
II
20. Permit all franchised cable television companies ("Cable
Company") equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot within the subdivision.
However, developer shall restrict access to the conduit to
only those franchised cable television companies who are and
remain in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of
the franchise and which are in further compliance with all
other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating
and affecting the operation of cable television companies as
same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the
City of Chula Vista.
21. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or pr~ceeding
against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to
attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor
any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard
to this subdivision; on the condition that the City promptly
notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding; and
on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the
defense.
II
II
22. Authorize the City to withhold building permits for any
unites) in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following
occur:
a. Regional development threshold li.its set by the East Chula
Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or
services exceed the adopted City threshold standards.
\ I 23. Not oppose formation of a zone within EastLake Maintenance
District No. 1 (or a new district) for the Telegraph Canyon
Flood Control Channel.
/d'IJ
Resolution No. 16902
Page 10
f'ol'.\-i J1f\lRcvf1)24.
f3y JtS5ES5t-<~T
2\-l{,.-ltJ~
!.'
Prepare a disclosure fonn to be signed by the home buyer
acknowledging that additional fees have been paid into the
Assessment District or the Transportation DIF Funds, and that
these additional fees are reflected in the purchase price of
the home. The fonn shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Miscellaneous.
Pay additional fees on a fair-share basis into the Assessment
District Numbers 85-2 and 90-3 Funds due to the additional
units approved subsequent to District formation. .
Pay all costs associated with reapportionment of assessments
for Assessment District Numbers 85-2 and 90-3 as a result of
subdivision of lands within the project boundary. Request
reapportionment and provide a deposit to the City estimated at
$40/unit/district to cover costs prior to approval of a final
map for any unit.
Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California
Coordinate System - Zone VI (NAD 1983) or as detennined by the
City Engineer.
Comply with all relevant Federal, State and local regulations,
including the Clean Water Act the National Pollutant Discharge
El imi nati on System (NPDES) . The developer shall be
responsible for providing documentation to demonstrate said
compliance as required by the City Engineer.
Provide the City with the Final Map in a digital fonnat such
as (DXF) graphic file. This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy
of the Fi na 1 Map shall be based on accurate coordi nate
geometry calculations and shall be submitted in duplicate on
5-1/2" HD floppy disk prior to Final Map approval.
Citv Code Reauirements.
FtE5 \lQJ
O~~llq[qJ.>
F~e5 w~~
6~ 1/PJlq3
25.
26.
i4-I':;~IE?~ oW27
F/t->.4L. 14M .
SlfT6'i=Il?D f!Jy 28.
MN.bv(fL o~
b- RA-~l~ PL-A f--)S
-4 "L./lNS
IHP(?cxi?f""~'r ,
€ecE',ved 29.
O~ -:r/WIQ3
6"ffl-6vi?J.
tZt("""'!-
.'
30. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans
shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
I'
50.:1. ' ~,~; "de (l€~ 31.
I
F-e-<>- \lo...\ cI 32.
00 7/1&/15
Underground all utilities witMn the subdivision in accordance
with Municipal Code requirements.
Pay the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin Development Impact Fee
prior to approval of the final map. Currently the amount is
$20,108 (5.127 gross acres x $3,922/AC) but is subject to
change based on the fee schedule effective at the time of
payment.
IO'IY
TD BE 6#T16 j:c/E.D
Th \2Lx.A ij (3v, I L{') i ~Is-
Pf;~MIT PC6C85S
I I
~ '<:-., 7ri' L ':-;....:l.7cJ
, ,,-, I
6 <<. y~,--_-:t: ,
J
Resolution No. 16902
Page 11
Provide some lots with residential fire sprinkler systems due
to access requirements as determined by the Fire Marshal.
Comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 24 and any
other energy conservation ordinances and policies in effect at
the time construction occurs on the property.
failing any of which conditions, or failing the continued
maintenance of same as the condition ..y require, this conditional
approval and any entitlement accruing hereunder, shall, following a
public hearing by the City Council at which the Applicant or his
successor in interest is given notice and the opportunity to appear
and be heard with regard thereto, be terminated or modified by the
Ci ty Counc il .
33.
34.
SECTION 8. CEQA Findings.
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as a later activity
to that evaluated in the Program EIR 81-03, FSEIR 86-04, and the
Negative Declaration for IS-92-04 would have no new effects that
were not examined in the preceding documents (Guideline 15168
(c)(I)).
a. Re-adoption of Findings - The Council does hereby re-approve,
accept as its own, and re-incorporate as if set forth full
herein, and make each and everyone of the CEQA Findings as found
in the Program EIR 81-03, FSEIR 86-04, and the Negative
Declaration for IS-92-04.
b. Feasibility of Alternatives - As is also noted in the
environmental documents referenced in the immediately preceding
paragraph, alternatives to the Project which were identified as
potentially feasible are hereby found not to be feasible.
c. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program - As required by the
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby re-
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
("Program") incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full. The City Council finds that the Program is designed to
ensure that during the project implementation and operation, the
Applicant and other responsible parties illplement the project
components and comply with the feasible .itigation lleasures
identified in the Findings and in the Program.
d. Statement of Overriding Considerations - Even after the re-
adoption of all feasible lIitigation lleasures, certain significant
or potentially significant environmental affects caused by the
project or cumulatively will remain. Therefore, the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista re-issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
/~.,/.s-
Resolution No. 16902
Page 12
identifying the specific economic, social, and other
considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse
envi ronmenta 1 effects sti 11 si gni fi cant but acceptabl e.
SECTION 9. Notice of Determination.
City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a
Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
Presented by
$//# R:-
Ap" · "ir"
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
111 ., I"
Resolution No. 16902
Page 13
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Cauncil af the City af Chula
Vista, Califarnia, this 24th day af Navember, 1992, by the fallawing vate:
YES: Councilllembers: Hortan, Malcalm, Maare
NOES: Caunci 1Il1embers: Nader
ABSENT: Cauncilmembers: Rindane
ABSTAIN: Cauncil~mbers: Nane
dJ~~~
David L. Malcalm
Mayar, Pra-Tempore
ATTEST:
.1
r /:
\. ,/ . ;
-,^-I " ,_ .;
Beverly fj..
/
.'
/ .-./.. I.'
, I I I .
I. \ J :' I'.}' .
Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk af the City af Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregaing Resolutian No.. 16902 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held an the 24th day af November, 1992.
ss.
Executed this 24th day of November, 1992.
/d'l?
RESOLUTION NO.
J7~1)~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING CONDITIONS 16,
20, 21, 22 AND 23 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAME
WHEREAS, on May 9, 1992, by Resolution 16902, the city
Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula vista
Tract 92-03, Championship Classics I; and
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval which will be met with
approval of the Supplement Subdivision Improvement Agreement are:
1.
Condition 16 which required the
successor in interest to EastLake,
the Telegraph Canyon Basin Sewer
Gravity Basin Usage Agreement
Resolution 15449;
developer, as
to comply with
Monitoring and
approved by
2. Condition 20 which required the developer to permit
all franchised cable television companies equal
opportunity to place conduit and provide cable
television service to each lot;
3 .
Condition 21 which required the
the city harmless for any claim
the city with regard to the
subdivision;
developer to hold
or action against
approval of this
4. Condition 22 which required the developer to
authorize the city to withhold building permits for
any unit(s) in the subject subdivision if Regional
development threshold limits set by the East Chula
vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached
or if Traffic volumes, levels of service, public
utilities and/or services exceed the adopted City
threshold standards;
5. Condi tion 23 which required the developer to not
oppose formation of a zone within EastLake
Maintenance District No. 1 (or a new district) for
the Telegraph canyon Flood Control Channel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Supplemental
Subdivision Improvement Agreement regarding Conditions 16, 20, 21,
22, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
IdA -/
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F:\home\attomey\Classic.SSI
ApproJed
" Bruce M.
Attorney
I~A'~
as to
It
o m by
Jl
ity
RESOLUTION NO.
/?rlItIJ3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA
TRACT 92-03, CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I,
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
THE EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID
SUBDIVISION, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA THE OPEN SPACE LOTS GRANTED ON
SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND
APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY
SAID SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista hereby finds that that certain map survey
entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-03 CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSICS I, and more
particularly described as follows:
Being a subdivision of a portion of Lot 4 of Chula vista
Tract 88-3, EastLake Green s, Phase I BIC, in the city of
Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 12545, filed in the office
of the County Recorder of San Diego, January 26, 1990.
Area: 5.127 acres
Numbered Lots: 7
No. of Lots: 16
Lettered Lots: 9
is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to
the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land
shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lots H and I are hereby
dedicated for Open Space, public utilities and other public Uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED said Council hereby accepts on
behalf of the city of Chula vista the easements with the right of
ingress and egress for visibility and street tree planting and
maintenance, a general utility easement along Lot H and general
access easements within Lots A, B, C, D, E and F, all as granted
and shown on said map within said subdivision, subject to the
conditions set forth thereon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the city of
Chula vista be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to
endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council
has approved said subdivision map, and that said lots are dedicated
for Open space and other public uses, and that those certain
easements with the right of ingress and egress for the construction
1
/~8-1
and maintenance of street tree planting, general utility and
general access, as granted thereon and shown on said map within
said subdivision is accepted on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
as hereinabove stated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Clerk be, and she is
hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision
Improvement Agreement dated the day of , 1993, for
the completion of improvements in said sUbdivision, a copy of which
is on file in the office of the city Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute
said agreement for and on behalf of the city of Chul vista.
APP7ed aSlo
!cJ~ 111,
t Bruce M. Booga
Attorney
V1.-A-<..
ity
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
of Public Works
F:\home\attomey\c1assics.sia
2
111 g...,J..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1/
Meeting Date 7/27/93
ITEM TITLE: Report: Work Program and authorization for a School Impact Mitigation
Study in conjunction with the Chula Vista Elementary School District,
Sweetwater Union High School District and Source Point (continued from
the meeting of July 20, 1993)
-_ - I
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning 2j l
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J ~ ~O ti-frJ (4/5ths Vote: yes_Nol)
RECOMMENDATION: That the item be continued for approximately four weeks.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The matter of school overcrowding and
the impact of growth on the need for school facilities, along with the proposal for a joint Schools
Impact Mitigation Study, was recently presented to the Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC). The GMOC's 1992 Annual Report subsequently contains a
recommendation that Council support the study effort.
DISCUSSION:
It has come to staff's attention that review of the proposed work program by the Chula Vista
Elementary School District has raised questions which may require revisions to the work
program.
The requested continuance will allow City and District staff to meet with Source Point to further
discuss City and District perspectives on the proposal, and to make necessary and mutually
acceptable revisions. Staff will return the item when these matters have been resolved.
(schmitc.a13)
//.../
COUNCn.. AGENDA STATEMENT
)"2-
Meeting Date Jul 0 1993 7/"2-'" /~ '!,
ITEM TITLE: Report: atay Corporate Center North Project
SUBMlTIED BY, D"""" of p""",", ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ ~ ~ (4/5ths vote: Yes_No.x.
On March 23, 1993, the City Council authorized staff to transmit a letter to the San Diego City
Council stating the City of Chula Vista's concerns regarding a proposed development project in
Otay Mesa known as "Otay Corporate Center North." Based on this direction, the attached
letter from the City Manager, dated June 28, 1993, was forwarded to the City Council. On June
29, 1993, the San Diego City Council approved a four week continuance for this project until
July 27, 1993. The following report provides a summary of the current status of this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept this report.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Otay Corporate Center North project is a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide a 178.9-acre
parcel into 77 lots averaging one to two acres in size for subsequent industrial development and
open space uses. The discretionary actions for this project involve General Plan and Community
Plan Amendments, rezone, vesting tentative map, and other permits for future development of
a vacant site, located north of Otay Mesa Road, along the eastern portion of Dennery Canyon
and approximately 1,360 feet west of Brown Field. Because the site is currently designated for
residential use in the Otay Mesa Community Plan, the applicant will also be required to annex
the site to the Otay Mesa Development District as an industrial subdistrict. The site is owned
by Pardee Construction Company.
The City of Chula Vista's active interest and involvement in this project dates back to December
1991, when the City initially responded to the draft EIR by submitting comments. Since that
time, the City has met with staff from the City of San Diego to discuss the responses to our
initial comments, and has submitted comments to the fmal EIR and provided public testimony
in opposition to the project to both the San Diego Subdivision Review Board and Planning
Commission. Based on the inadequacy of the responses to our initial comments, which were
prepared as a part of the fmal EIR, and the City's general lack of response to issues which we
J7-L
.--. I
l2= \
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date ul 1993
12-
i/l-'/'13.
believe still exist, our staff remains unsatisfied with the level of analysis given to this project and
the lack of sufficient documentation to support the responses to our comments.
As detailed in our June 28 letter, staff remains concerned over the potential for unmitigated
cumulative and regional impacts resulting from 1) the lack of an adopted Transportation Phasing
Plan for western Otay Mesa, 2) the adequacy of the transportation analysis conducted for this
project, 3) the age, adequacy and reliance upon the Otay Mesa Community Plan and supporting
EIR (adopted in 1981) as reference documents for ongoing project review and discretionary
action, and 4) the amount of land devoted to industrial uses on the Otay Mesa.
As noted earlier, the San Diego City Council voted on June 29 to continue this matter for four
weeks. The reason for this continuance was to allow potential safety impacts of the proposed
Transborder Airport on this project to be evaluated. As background, on May 25, 1993, with
the adoption of Resolution No. 2820463, the Council stated its intention not to grant any rezones
for residential or other uses within the entire Otay Mesa community planning area for a six
month period, because of potential land use compatibility impacts resulting from possible runway
alignments for the proposed Transborder Airport. While the Resolution allows for rezoning for
airport compatible uses, such as commercial and industrial, it has recently been determined that
as much as one-half of the l78-acre site proposed for the Otay Corporate Center North project
may be impacted, as it is located within the new alignment's suggested airport safety "clear
zone" (see attached exhibit). State and federal guidelines recommend that a 2,500 foot clear
zone, an area free of any structural development, be maintained at both ends the runways.
The applicant, in an attempt to prevent a six month processing delay, proposed a four week
continuance of the project to allow the time necessary for an independent airport consultant to
conduct a precise runway alignment study for the purpose of determining the extent and
significance of said impact, as well as to evaluate the potential for partial development of the
property in areas not impacted by the clear zone. Thus, the City Council, acting in accordance
with the applicant's request, unanimously approved the four week continuance.
The San Diego City Council will be meeting on July 27, 1993, to discuss both the fmdings of
the runway alignment study for this project, and to take action on the approval, denial or further
continuance of this project. It is our staffs intention to continue with the same course of action
and to provide public testimony regarding the project. Again, we will request that all
discretionary actions regarding the project and EIR be postponed until these issues are adequately
addressed. In addition, our letter which has been previously submitted to Council, suggests
specific actions that their Planning Department take to ameliorate these concerns, and requests
their consideration of these actions at this hearing. It should be noted that our staff does not
intend to comment at this time regarding the safety issues of this project related to the
Transborder Airport, unless Council sees the need and specifically directs staff to do so.
From the onset of this project, our primary objective has been to ensUre that impacts, whether
from existing, planned or future growth on the Otay Mesa and related primarily to transportation
-J-? .2-
/2..-2-
TInS PAGE BlANK
~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date ul 1993
and circulation, land use, and public facilities fInancing, are provided adequate mitigation. We
will keep the City Council informed of any specifIc responses from the City of San Diego on
this matter, as well as any future actions that we deem necessary or are directed to take in order
to ensure that our concerns raised in the letter receive adequate response.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
(f: \home\planning\occnupdt.a13)
~
12 - ~I 1,).-1
12
..., /,.,/.....,
/
~)
,/
"-.J"t.w. \"")...
~ ~ It--
~~~~
....~..........
~~~
OlY OF
CHULA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 28, 1993
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Diego
202 HC" Street
San Diego, California 92101
Subject:
Otay Corporate Center North Final EIR (DEP No. 88-1144)
Dear Mayor Golding and Members of the Council,
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the City of Chula Vista's concerns with the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Otay Corporate Center North Industrial
Subdivision, and associated planning and development assumptions on which the EIR is based.
The City of Chula Vista also would like to suggest some actions that your Planning Department
take to address these concerns.
It should be noted that, on March 23, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council authorized our staff
to forward the comments contained in this letter to your City Council. Subsequently, we
received a copy of the City Manager's Report on this project, dated June 22, 1993, which is
recommending that action on this project be continued until after November 25, 1993, due to
Transborder Airport issues. We have not had ,,<1 opportunity to review the most recent City
Manager's recommendations with our City Council; however, we feel that the comments
contained in this letter should still be made known to you at this time.
The City of Chula Vista reviewed the Draft EIR for the above referenced project in October
1991 and submitted comments regarding potential impacts to traffic, land use, biology, visual
quality and landform alteration which, in our opinion, were not adequately addressed in the
document. Since this time, Chula Vista has responded to the Final EIR and has provided public
testimony in opposition to the project to both the San Diego Subdivision Review Board and
Planning Commission. Based on the responses to our initial comments, which were prepared
as a part of the Final EIR, and the Planning Commission's lack of response to issues we believe
still exist, the City of Chula Vista remains unsatisfied with the level of analysis given to this
project and the lack of sufficient documentation to support the responses to our comments. In
question and of particular concern is I) the lack of an adopted Transportation Phasing Plan for
western Otay Mesa, 2) the adequacy of the transportation analysis conducted for this project, 3)
the age, adequacy, a:1d reliance upon the Otay Mesa Community Plan and EIR (1981) as
reference documents for ongoing project review and discretionary action, and 4) the amount and
intensity of land devoted to industrial uses on Otay Mesa.
~
/;2. -}? /
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5031
Mayor Golding and City Council
-2-
June 28, 1993
Until these issues are adequately addressed, the City of Chula Vista respectfully requests that
action on the conditional approval of the vesting tentative map, and other discretionary actions,
and certification of the Final EIR, be postponed.
Our specific concerns with the issues noted are summarized in the following sections. It should
be noted that many of these same concerns have been previously brought to the attention of the
City of San Diego via two letters from John Goss, City Manager, dated January 21, 1991 and
December 24, 1992 (see attached).
Transoortation Phasin!! for Otay Mesa
As indicated by the responses to our initial comments (please see Draft EIR comments 1,2,4,5
and 9) ~he Final EIR provides no evidence that cumulative traffic impacts caused by approved
and pending projects, including the proposed project, have been adequately analyzed to ensure
that the regional circulation system will not be adversely affected.
The City of Chula Vista is of the opinion that without an adopted Transportation Phasing Plan
(TPP) for western Otay Mesa, no assurances can be given through the Precise Plan process or
through the approval of project-specific TPPs that a working regional serving circulation system
will be in place or available commensurate with need.
As you are aware, several joint transportation planning studies are currently underway which
affect the future Otay Mesa circulation system as shown in the EIR. Central to these studies is
how best to accommodate regional traffic demand forecasts for the South Bay region and the
design and alignment of transportation facilities crossing the Otay River Valley. At present,
only Heritage Road and future SR-125 are shown as river crossings in the Otay Mesa
Community Plan and Public Facility Financing Plan; yet, the environmental document for the
Otay Corporate Center North project improperly assumes completion of La Media Road across
the Otay River Valley. To reiterate our earlier concern, until an adopted circulation system is
in place along with an adopted phasing and financing mechanism for the entire Mesa, it seems
inappropriate to base a traffic analysis on an assumed circulation system.
Otay Coroorate Center North Traffic Analysis
In the revised and final Transportation Phasing Improvement Plan for the Otay Corporate Center
North and South projects, a trip generation rate of 130 trips per industrial acre was used in the
traffic analysis. This rate is higher than and inconsistent with the industrial land use trip rate
assumptions originally and currently planned for Otay Mesa. This is critical since previous
studies preformed by SANDAG indicate that there is not sufficient capacity on the RTP
circulation system to accommodate the cumulative effect of an industrial trip rate greater than
100 trips per acre. Prior to approval of this or any industrial project above a rate that is already
)~-t
~.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mayor Golding and City Council
-3-
June 28, 1993
of concern, additional studies should first be completed to determine the potential for cumulative
and regional impacts.
Also in question is whether the traffic analysis and phasing plan for the project considered the
impact on the existing and planned circulation system caused by additional dweIIing units now
being allowed through a "conceptual agreement" to landowners of several adjacent residential
projects as a result of the redesigned sub-regional open space system. The City of Chula Vista
finds no evidence of these additional trips being considered in the project's traffic analysis. This
increase will add considerably to the number of trips on the system and should be assessed for
its cumulative impact.
Otay Mesa Community Plan
The City of Chula Vista remains concerned about the adequacy and continued use of the original
environmental document prepared for the annexation and establishment of city zoning on Otay
Mesa, in particular, the amount of industrially designated land on the Mesa and resulting
analysis regarding cumulative traffic impacts. Studies have shown that there is limited capacity
on the regional circulation system to serve traffic generated on Otay Mesa utilizing standard
rates for industrial uses. When the regional circulation system for the Otay Mesa Community
Plan was evaluated a lower standard (100 trips per industrial acre) was used in the transportation
model. To rely on those earlier documents for ongoing project review appears flawed, as we
believe they do not adequately analyze the cumulative and regional impacts of approved and
pending projects on the existing and planned circulation system. Furthermore, we feel this
situation will be exacerbated by increasing the industrial base through the approval of the Otay
Corporate Center North and South projects. The net result of continuing with this course of
action will be high traffic volumes and resultant poor levels of service on the freeways and
arterials connecting to and through the City of Chula Vista.
Industrial Zonin~ on the Mesa
The City of Chula Vista remains concerned about the amount and intensity of land devoted to
industrial use on the Mesa, both in the City of San Diego and in the unincorporated area of the
County. To state that an increase of 120 acres will not create a land use impact because it
represents only 3 percent of the City's total industrial acreage on Otay Mesa is to ignore the fact
that over 3,600 acres of industrial zoned land already exists in the City's portion of Otay Mesa.
The proposed increase will increase an already existing land use imbalance between employment
generating uses and residences for those employees which has negative impacts upon Chula Vista
in terms of traffic, air quality and economics. The City of Chula Vista believes this increase
should have been analyzed in the EIR and that it constitutes a cumulatively significant land use
impact.
);2 - '/
--3
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Mayor Golding and City Council
-4-
June 28, 1993
Conclusion
Due to the above mentioned concerns, the City of Chula Vista would like to advocate that your
planning department embark on a comprehensive update of the Otay Mesa Community Plan and
that this update be made a high priority work item. The City of Chula Vista would also request
that the Otay Mesa Public Facilities Financing Plan be reexamined and expanded to include
missing or underfunded river crossings, and that this update be linked to an adopted
Transportation Phasing Plan for western Otay Mesa to ensure the availability of these facilities
commensurate with need.
In order for the Community Plan to provide sufficient direction to meet current development
needs, we believe at minimum that the transportation information should be revised and updated
in the context of an environmental document. That update should embrace, at least in concept,
a work program component to look at the balance of residential and non-residential uses in the
south San Diego area and further explore the demand and possibilities for non-industrial, but
compatible and support uses for the Otay Mesa area.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR for the Otay Corporate
Center North project and matters relating to the planning and development of Otay Mesa. We
look forward to your response and consideration on the above matters.
Sincerel y,
t94~
John D. Goss
City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
Attachment: Ltr dated 1/21/91 to John Lockwood
Ltr dated 12/24/92 to Jack McGrory
(a:\occo_ccJet)
J2-!S 1-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~{~
=--st__~
~5"-~
ii:~
eflY OF
CHULA VISTA
~'y (;- ~'\. ~1:> ',,,, ~ IV\.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ""ANAGER
January 21, 1991
John Lockwood
City Manager
City of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California
RE: OTA~~AND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Dear Mr~c~d:
This letter is to state some ongoing concerns which the City of Chula Vista
has regarding the development of the Otay ~esa and to suggest a couple of
actions. First, we would like to advocate tha~ YD~r Planning Department's
update of the Otay Mesa Community Plan be made a'high priority work item.
Second, we would request certain additional infrastructure issues be addressed
with the annual update of the Otay Mesa Financing Plan (FBA). Third, we would
like to have greater participation and input from your city regarding the
State Route 125 toll road proposal. .
As to the Otay Mesa land use, the City of Chula Vista remains concerned about
the amount and intensity of land devoted to industrial use on the Mesa, both
in the City of San Diego and in the unincorporated area of the County.
Conversely, we are equally concerned about the lack of attention being devoted
to the opportunity for non-industrial land use~ on the Mesa. The net result
of continuing with the current course of action will, be a high traffic volume
and resultant poor levels of service on the freeways and arterials connecting
to and through the City of Chula Vista. We question the adequacy of the
original environmental documents prepared for the annexation and establishment
of city zoning on the Mesa, in particular, the information regarding
cumulative traffic impacts. Furthermore, the reli~nce on those earlier
documents for ongoing project review and discr~tionary actions appears
flawed. At a minimum, we believe that ~he tr6nsportati~n information should
be revised and updated in the context of an, ![1v)r:nlmenhl document in support
of an update of the Otay Mesa Community PlaD"f~~t.up~ate hopefully would
also embrace at least in concept, a work progr.a", component to look at the
balance of residential and non residential uses in the'South SIn Diego area
and further explore the demand and possibilities for non industrial, but
compatible and support uses for the Otay Mesa area.
);2, -;
-.5
Z76 FOURTH AVENUE/CHU~A VISTA, CA~I;OF"~IA 12010/('1') "1.5031
. I
On the County side of the issue, Chula Vista has continued to challenge the
assertions that additional industrial zoning is appropriate on the East Mesa
and was successful in encouraging them to do ,dditional. environmental analysis
prior to the establishment of any new zoning. .We are closely monitoring their
current Specific Plan Process and have the same goals and objectives in mind
for both jurisdictions. In conclusion, a mere ~6lanced land use approach is
really needed by the City and County if the transportation system in the
sub-region is going to work. Chula Vista will to do its part as well IS a
co~,onent of an overall strategy.
As to the financing plan on the Otay Mesa, we f,el ~hat the program needs to
be expanded and reexamined. Your annual upda~ should include a revision to
consider participation and funding for additiona'l cross)ngs of the Otay River
Valley. The update should examine more closely. the cost and timing for the
construction of the currently-included Herihgelload crossing between Chula
Vista and the City of San Diego. The cost eStimate'for that facility may be
underestimated and the timing of construction may need to be advanced to our
mutual advantage. .
Finally, your city needs to look at its role and the role of the Otay Mesa
property owners with respect to State Route 125. This should likely be
accomplished based upon discussions with the State, City of Chula Vista and
the County of San Diego. Additional input is needed as to the merits of a
toll facility, what the ramifications of such a facility might be and a
strategy developed for funding and constructi~n of a t~~n$portation facility
in the SR 125 alignment should a toll road or State freeway not come to
fruition. '
In summary, we suggest the following:
1. A change in Planning Department priority to focus on the update of the
Otay Mesa Community Plan.
2. Inclusion of missing or underfunded bridge 'mprovements in your annual
update of the Otay Mesa Financing Plan.
3. Greater involvement by San Diego staff in the discussions regarding a toll
road for State Route 125 including a clarification of your position on a
toll road and what issues and concerns you, mav hAve with the proposal.
We look forward to your response and cooperation on the above matters Ind
appreciate the opportunity of raising these points with you.
/
JDG:GK:lm
LOCKWOOD/c
/d) -/0
6'
CrTY OF CHULJ. VISTA
~{~
~
01Y OF
OiUlA VISTA
OfFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Deceaber 24, 1992
Jack McGrory, City Manager
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Jack:
On January 21, 1991, I sent a letter to John Lockwood (see attached) requesting
that the City of San Diego take steps to update and refine the land use plan for
Otay Mesa. I believe this request was denied because of inadequate resources to
support such a planning effort. Even though San Diego's fiscal condition has not
improved but has worsened, a request is still being ..de that the City update the
Otay Mesa Master Plan. The reasons for this request are as follows:
1. It has been 14 years since San Diego Progress Guide and Genera' Plan was
adopted and 11 1/2 years s~'ce the Otay Mesa COImUnity Plan was adopted.
It is now timely that the plan be updated to include the additional land
use and environmental information which has been developed over the years.
2. Most importantly, Chula Vista is very concerned about traffic generated
from all the zoned industrial develOplllent on Otay Mesa. Even though
planners are using an est illite of 100 trips per acre for industrial
development and argue that current warehouse developlent produces less
than that. there is a concern that the a.,unt of trips per acre will
increase as other uses fill in the industrial _ix. Even if the planners
are wrong by 10% (say 110 trips per acre), and planners have often been
80re off base than that, it would lean that an additional 60,000 trirs per
day would be generated by the Mesa up through the corridors of 1-5, -805,
and the future SR 125, as well as the City streets of Chula Vista. This
would overload these freeways to unacceptable levels.
3. Related to traffic is the fact that new developlent occurring in the South
Bay, especially IS part of the joint planning process lIe....n the City and
the County of the Otay Ranch Project, is oriented toward transit.
According to a recent report by MTDB, planned developlent in tilt west Otay
Mesa in the City of Sin Diego is not oriented~oward transit dtvelOplent.
They point out that these develOplents, principally those in the
residential areas, were planned prior to adoption of the City's transit
oriented design guidelines. Apparently, MTDB is asking that revisions to
these plans be ..de to create accessibility to transit. 'Th;s would be
/cJ -II
?
m FOUIlnl A\lEN~UL.A YWT" CAlIOl'lNIA ""IVII'" .,..."
-2-
-il..
another reason why the ..ster plln for Dtay MeSI should be relssessed in
order to reflect San Diego's current transit oriented design guidelines
and to respond to this request free MTDB.
4. further, at the tile the original Dtly Mesa ..ster ,lln .IS co.pleted, at
least in the view of the City of Chula Vista, fnldequate allowance .as
..de for needed c~~ital i~rovelents to serve Olly MeSI. While the Otay
Mesa financing plan has been recently updated, fssues such as additional
river crossings and how to address the proposed toll rold are not
discussed.
5. Underlying the concern of the City of Chula Vista fs the flct that
planning principles utilized at the tile did not foresee new air quality
strategies, habitat preservation, .ixed use developlent etc. in
determining the land use of the west Mesa, especiully between Brown Field
Ind the border, compared to the planning that is now occurring on the
Otay Ranch project or the east Mesa being planned currently by the County
of San Diego. Since it wi 11 tlke ..ny, ..ny years for fndustrial
development to occur in the industrial portion of the Mesa within the City
of San Diego, there is time for a ..ster plan revision to take these
factors into account.
The root of the problem is that the llnd use plan for the industrial
portion of the west Mesa provides for wall-to-wall industrial development
which does not include land uses which could ..ke this development ~re
livable and to mitigate the i~pacts that this llnd use will have on Ireas
north of the Mesa, particularly the City of Chula Vista. There needs to
be more residential development to create a better jobs/housing balance,
and even ~fter that, there is a need to provide COlmercial and
recreational facilities on the Mesa to replace existing industriall~ zoned
land to create a better balanced industrial area. Adequate shopp,ng, an
executive golf course or courses, commercial softball cOIplexes, driving
ranges, are examples of alternate land uses which could clpture trips on
the Mesa, as well as better serve the e~ployees that will eventually be on
the Mesa. At the same time, there .ould still be enough llnd for
industrial development for the City of San Diego for ..ny years and
decades to come.
for the above reasons, the City of Chull Vista strongly urges the City of San
Diego to redefine and update its ..ster plan on the western Mesa. This Ictually
should include a ~ratorium on Iny tentative ..ps in th! fndustrial area unless
they are immediately adjacent to the border or to Brown Field, since there is
already a significant amount of industrial acreage ..pped on the Mesa for a
number of years to come. The remaining area should be replanned taking into
account all the ~yriad of changes in land use ..ndates and principles and for the
rationale provided earlier in this letter.
/.2 - /2--
s
. .
-3-
Your cooperation in looking at this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
:J
JDG:mab
lockwood
;1,;2 --- / J
cr
CITY OIF CHULA YllTA
..
-,.--'
\
/
/'-
~ ,
I
"-..
~
OTAY IIESA
...........LI'llOI'OlIAUI
...... ,....... 0... .... ~. ......
A o-..r, R8ndt IWdRt 245 1.503 5013
BOIly....... v.nou. .... on HaId
C c.T_ ,... _ 5.375 '.01 ~
: =~ =:.. :: ~:: :::
F"'" s......1nw. "-'- t27 591 .U5
o Sault P... V.mu. 250 1,245 C__
H........ YlIrIDuI PlafIdGrlHald
I AIn*Igm Hh v.tou. 100 352 3.
~ OIIyCorp.ND.".... In .........PIIt\
:.....~.........F.b.tltt.
,.......lramStpl.I.. unliT.....,.....,..............
~
~
~
OTAY MESA - NESTOR
TlA JUANA RIVER VALLEY.
SAN YSIDRO. AND OTAY MESA
COMMUNITY PlANS
-~
J--
I
.-.--- - -.-'
I
J--
I
I
.... ......l-
..../ .........:
~
..;... FAA RUNWAY PROlEC11ON/APPROACH
ZONE DIMENSIONS
- - STATE GUIDEUNEs
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
!
I
,
I
,
I
I
t
I
I
I
,
/ i
~~=:J
I
__J
IID/
<I>
--
- =-"'="==-,:--..-"'...--
_......_---..~-.__.._---
... -----'_.~-.....-----
=-~'::""u:::.::"'..:.":_""":.:::...-..,..Qr.,
TRANS-BORDER STUDY AREA-
AIRPORT VS. DEVELOPMENT - OTAY MESA
OPTION 3b ALIGNMENT
o
.tachaent 10
"'<'tap. 1 of ,
MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1993
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John Goss, City Manager.J~,~) ~j
Ken Lee, Assistant Director of Planning ?1 ~ J
AGENDA ITEM #12- STATUS UPDATE, OTAY CORPORATE CENTER
NORTH
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
As scheduled, the San Diego City Council considered the above noted project at its
meeting this morning. Despite Chula Vista's most recent letter of opposition, and San
Diego staffs recommendation to continue the hearing to after November 25, 1993 due
to transborder airport issues, the Council approved the proiect and related discretionarv
actions (vote 5-4) includina General and Communitv Plan amendments. final EIR and
findinas. ordinance incorporatina the site into the Otav Mesa Development District
Industrial Subdistrict zone. ordinance amendina the Municipal Code related to that
District. an ordinance amendina the San YsidrolOtav Mesa Enterprise Zone. vestina
Tentative Map. and Resource Protection Overlav Permit.
Their discussion centered around the uncertain future of continued airport planning
activities, and consequently, undue and prolonged delay of action on the Corporate
Center project. They further cited the general need to support economic and job
growth in moving the project forward, and stated the position that industrial uses were
generally consistent with an airport, should the airport proposal ultimately move forward.
Based on these actions, staff intends to confer with our City Manager and City Attorney
regarding subsequent response and possible legal action. Staff will report back to the
Council within the next three weeks as to proposed courses of action for Council
direction.
(otcorpcn,mem)
'r; /.~
/ c7'\ .--- P
/
/
'--"-:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
13
Meeting Date
07/27/93
Public Hearing: Consideration of Rate Increase for
Collection and Disposal of Refuse
Resolution 17~"r Approving Rate Schedules
for Collection and Disposal of Refuse Effective
July 1, 1993
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager KremplU;~
Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~~~t1~l (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-)
ITEM TITLE:
The County of San Diego recently increased its landfill fees by
53.57%, from $28 per ton to $43 per ton effective July 1, 1993.
Based on the County's action, Laidlaw Waste Systems has requested
a rate increase for the collection and disposal of refuse. The
proposed rates reflect onlv the change in the landfill component
and do not incorporate any changes for consumer price index or
franchise fee rate.
The adjustment for the landfill rate increase has the effect of
increasing the residential rate from the current $12.28 per month
to $14.62 per month.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution approving the rate schedules
to be effective July 1, 1993.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Rate structure
In August 1991, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2475 clarifying the
methodology for calculating rate increases to collect and dispose
of refuse. The rate is made up of several components: Landfill
Rate Component, Franchise Fee Rate Component, and Other (Operating)
Rate Component. The Other Rate Component may (subject to Council
approval) be increased in accordance with the annual change in the
consumer price index (but not to exceed 6%) to cover operational
cost increases. Increases in the Landfill Rate Component and the
Franchise Fee Rate Component are considered, and have been treated
as, direct pass-throughs permitted by the waste management
franchise ordinance.
The only component addressed by this report is the Landfill Rate
Component. The Other Rate Component and the Franchise Fee Rate
13"'1
Item J j
Meeting Date
Page 2
07/27/93
component will remain unchanged.
Because of the significant increase in landfill fees imposed by the
County, Laidlaw is requesting that the increase be passed-through,
thus increasing the rates charged for the collection and disposal
of refuse. Ordinance No. 2475 states that "the proportion of
modification to the Landfill Rate Component shall not exceed the
proportion of change since Grantee's last rate increase in the rate
charged by the County of San Diego to Grantee for tipping fees at
the Otay Landfill". In other words, the Landfill Rate Component
may be increased by the same percentage increase in the County
landfill fees. Since the County's July 1 increase in landfill fees
represented a 53.57% increase from the previous fees, it is
proposed that the Landfill component of Laidlaw's rates also be
increased by 53.57%.
Laidlaw has submitted information indicating that their actual
landfill costs for the past two years have been $166,000 more than
they have received in revenue from the Landfill component of their
collection and disposal rates. They are also projecting th~t in
FY 1993-94 their actual landfill costs will exceed revenues by
$140,000 even with approval of the proposed Landfill component rate
increase before the Council tonight. Although Laidlaw's position
is that they are not recovering all of their landfill costs, staff
still recommends that the Landfill rate component be increased only
by the same percentage increase (53.57%) as the county Landfill
fees. This adheres to the Ordinance language and is the same
methodology used the previous two years. This issue will continue
to be discussed with Laidlaw and will be addressed at a later date.
Attachment One indicates the proposed residential and commercial
rate schedules reflecting the increase in the Landfill Rate
Component to be effective July 1, 1993. Examples of the impact on
the rates are as follows:
Tvpe of Service
Existing Rates
as of 6/30/93
Proposed Rates to
be Effective 7/01/93
Residential (Single Family)
Trailer Parks & Motels
(Minimum Per Month)
$12.28 (1)
$19.98
$14.62 (1)
$22.32
Senior Yellow Bag Program
$44.13
$12.25
$53.27
$14.50
Commercial & Industrial
(One Time Weekly)
(1) Includes $1.10 for recycling
13'~
Item ) ;J Page 3
Meeting Date 07/27/93
The Franchise Ordinance states that "the city Council shall have
the unilateral right to require a hearing for any rate increase at
its discretion." The Council has an implied right to approve or
disapprove all or any portion of any proposed rate increase. In
past practice, all "pass-throughs" relating to increases in
Landfill fees and Franchise Fees have been approved. If the
proposed rates are not approved, then it would put Laidlaw in the
position of having to pay substantially higher Landfill fees
without the ability to recover these costs through their rate
structure. And as previously discussed, Laidlaw is already in a
situation where they are not fully recovering their Landfill costs.
Settlement Amount
In 1991, questions were raised regarding the methodology used to
calculate rate increases in previous years. Staff, wi th the
assistance of the city's auditors (Deloitte & Touche), and with the
cooperation of Laidlaw, reviewed the rate increases for the
previous five years. The review disclosed that past increases had
been calculated by applying the percentage change in the consumer
price index each year to the entire existing rate charged to
customers. The correct calculation should have been to apply the
percent change in the consumer price index to the Other Rate
Component only, and treat changes in Landfill rates and Franchise
Fee rates as pass throughs not to be increased by the consumer
price index.
As a result of this review, staff performed a recalculation of the
rate increases for the previous five years. This recalculation
resul ted in a one-time permanent reduction of $0.24 in their
residential rates, a reduction of approximately $0.08 per yard for
commercial rates, and identified an amount of $305,000 to be
redistributed. The City Council approved using $50,000 to
establish a city Waste Management Trust Fund and using the balance
of the settlement adjustment in the amount of $255,000 (plus
interest earnings) to offset rate increases for the next three
years. Sixty percent was used in the first year (1991-92) to
reduce rate increases and twenty percent was to be applied in each
of the second and third years.
For the first year this resulted in a reduction of $0.26 to the
residential rate and a reduction of $0.11 last year. The proposed
rate schedules extend the 1992-93 reduction and reflect an $0.11
reduction for 1993-94.
Franchise Fees
As indicated above, the City's Franchise Fee Rate is proposed to
J "3 ';J
Item l;l
Meeting Date
Page 4
07/27/93
remain at the current 8%. However, even with the same rate, the
city will receive approximately $120,000 additional Franchise Fee
revenues in FY 1993-94 if the proposed rate schedules are approved
by the City Council. This occurs because the City's Franchise Fee
Rate is applied against gross revenues and Laidlaw will receive
higher revenues (and experience higher costs) as a result of the
increase in rates for waste collection and disposal. The Franchise
Fee Component of the proposed rate schedule represents $0.19 of the
rate increase.
Future Rate Adiustments
Although staff is recommending proceeding with the pr9posed
l.ncrease in rates due to the direct pass through and immediate
impact of the increase in County landfill rates, the issue of rate
increases tied to the consumer price index is still outstanding.
In March 1993 Laidlaw applied for a rate adjustment for refuse
collection and curbside recycling based on a 2.1% increase in the
consumer price index. The request was denied by the City Manager
because of lack of any financial data from Laidlaw supporting the
proposed increase.
staff has been meeting with Laidlaw with the goals of developing a
standard refuse and disposal rate application and review
methodology which will be consistent from year to year, provide the
City Council with relevant financial information so that Council
can be confident of its decisions regarding rate adjustments,
ensure that citizens receive quality service at reasonable rates,
and allow Laidlaw a reasonable profit and return for necessary
costs associated with providing the service.
One step in the right direction toward meeting the above goals is
that, beginning September 1, 1993, Laidlaw will maintain separate
financial information for the city of Chula vista franchise. In
the past, financial information has been available only on a
division basis in which Chula vista was a portion of the larger
service area. This change should make it easier to develop
relevant financial indicators regarding Laidlaw's operations in
Chula vista.
FISCAL IMPACT:
For single family residential, the rate for refuse collection is
proposed to increase from $12.28 to $14.62 per month representing
a 19% increase. The impact on all rate payers is indicated on
Attachment One.
If Council approves the proposed rate schedules, the City will
receive an estimated $820,000 in franchise fee revenue for FY 1993-
94. Of this amount, approximately $120,000 is attributable to the
proposed landfill rate increase. The City's franchise fee rate
will remain at 8%.
IJ"1
RESOLUTION NO. 17204
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 1993
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego recently increased its
landfill fees by 53.57% from $28 per ton to $43 per ton effective
July 1, 1993; and
WHEREAS, based on the County's action, Laidlaw Waste
Systems has requested a rate increase for the collection and
disposal of refuse; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rates reflect only the change in
the landfill component and do not incorporate any changes for
consumer price index or franchise fee rate; and
WHEREAS, the adjustment for the landfill rate increase
has the effect of increasing the residential rate from the current
$12.28 per month to $14.62 per month.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the following rates
effective July 1, 1993 and as set forth in the attached Attachment
One:
Tvpe of Service
Proposed Rates
Trailer Parks & Motels
(Minimum Per Month)
$14.43 (1)
$22.13
Residential (single Family)
Senior Yellow Bag Program
$52.44
$14.32
commercial & Industrial
(One Time Weekly)
(1) Includes $1.10 for recycling
Presented by
Approved as to form by
George Krempl, Deputy city
Manager
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
F:\home\attomey\trash.inc
13-5
FilE: CVRe03lF
7-14-03
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
RESIDENTIAL RATES
"LANDFlLL INCREASE BASED ON % OF COMpONENT - NOT COST INCREASE ..
P..flNO ...........
WAITE ... WAUl! A .. 0
IUoTI!AT UTTLEIUIT fIAT! AT fllANCHl!lE LAHOFIU FEE F.....NCHI.E
'_H_n YEA" I AOJ '.H_n fEE..... wnAD..I lNCIlIEA.E ...
,., 10' IA+I' ,e, 1'1 ,., IH-CI
COLUMN:
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
SINGLE FAMILY lilt
Wll1 UNIT'.vTUONlE lElDI ADDnONMUNIT \i.."-~,_... :'
SO.11
SO.08
TRAILER PARKS & MOTELS (CENTRAL L
';'MMu.Y-PER MONTH . 'i1l.911 SO.21
Mon-MEs WEEKLY 1;7<4 SO.08
THREE nMES WEEKLY /S9".52, SO.09
FOUR nMES WEEKLYSU;llr SO.11
D.A1LYPICK UP ~MES'JJM.!I SO.13
fC+D+1!1 _Z-f_lE."
l S"~~~~... LSO.. .,~ S2.D4L SO.'9J U~
_$8.44 SO.67 $3.70..$4.08 $0....1.' _S.2..CJ.4 SO.19 SO.88
OCATIONI:
S2O.19 SI.60 $3.70 $14.89
$7.82 SO.62 $3.70 ~
S9.61 SO.76 $3.70 $5~
SI1.29 SO.89 $3.70 $6.70
S12.79 SI.Dl $3.70 $8.08
TRAILER PARKS (INDIVIDUAL CAN SERVICE PER UNIT:
. ONE COLLEcnON WEEKLY'.$Iii..~ SO.08 $8.44
TWO'coLLEcnoNs WeEKLY $IQ.79 SO.11 SI0.90
SENIOR "YELLOW BAG' PROGRAM:
i.. BAG PURCHASE$M!U',
II lAG I"U"CHASIE OEUVEIlIEO TO HOMIE ~e!r
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL:
.lJ.~ TO (2) 40 GAL CONTAINERS
ONE nME WEEKLY
TWO nMES WEEKLY
THREE nMES WEEKLY
SO.12
SO.22
SO.33
~,:
$22.00.
$32.-43
~
~~
3:
f"T1
:z
.....
o
:z
f"T1
$44.13
$44.65
$3.53 S14.44 $26.17
$3.57 $14.44 S26.64
S12.37 SO.98 $3.56 S7.83
S22.22 SI.76 $6.38 $14.08
$32.76 S2.59 S9.41 S2O.76
SO.11 $2.04 SO.19
~.11 S2.04 SO.19
SO.11 S2.04 SO.19
SO.11 $2.04 SO.19
~.11 S2.04 SO.19
~~~-~I
SO.11 $2.04 SO.19
S7.96 1
S7.96
SO.73 1
SO.73
SO.441
SO.44
SO.10 SI.96 SO.18
SO.19 $3.52 SO.32
SO.29 $5.19 SO.48
Sl.79
SO.81
SO.95
S1.08
SI.2O
SO.881
S1.05
$4.26
$4.30
Sl.18
$2.08
$3.07
10.".-' 1H".lE-II
:::~ L:;~J :::~llla
$5.85 S14.89
$5.85 $3.51
$5.85 $5.15
$5.85 $6.70
$5.85 $8.08
:::~ I ::: I :::~!l:~
S22.84 S26.17
S22.84 S26.64
$5.53 $7.83
S10.09 S14.08
S14.90 S2O.76
.
SO.12
SO.22 sll$;~
SO.33 .$M;Ml"
INn". ..
....
....-
5J-AI
S2.34
$2.34
S2.34
S2.34
S2.34
S2.34
S2.34
S2.34
S2.34
$9.13
$9.13
$2.25
$4.04
$5.97
..-
ALE: cvceo3lF
7-t4-03
RATE NO. W:~ ::J
LEVEL 8,Na otU .
"M"UU RATE 1 1 13
_ "'~X!."U" R~TE 1 1 13
MlHlMUM RATE 1 2 ~
MAXIMUM RATE 1 2 ..
MlN_~_~" R~~ 1 3 30
~_~.!'U.. RATE 1 3 30
_...~..U.. RATE 1 4 52
_MAXIMUM RATE 1 4 ..
MI..MUM RATE 1 5 ..
MMIIUM RATE 1 5 ..
MI..MUM RATE 1 -. 6 10
MAXIMUM RATE 1 6 7.
III..MUU RATE 1 7 01
MAXIMUM RATE 1 7 01
......UIlI RATE 2 1 21
MAXIMUM RATE --- 2 1 ~_4!
--
MI"MUM "ATE .J. 2 -~
- -.-
~~~-~-~~-~- -~ _? -"'
""MUM RATE 2 3 10
MAXIMUM RATE 2 3 7.
MI..MUM RATE 2 4 '.4
MAXIMUM RATE 2 4 104
......U.. RATE 2 5 130
MAXIMUM RATE 2 5 130
MI..MUM RATE 2 6 1M
""!DMUU "ATE 2 6 1M
MI..MUM "ATE 2 7 112
""XUIIUM RATE 2 7 11.
EXISTING
WASTE ....
RATE AT .~
8-IO-OS ftMlADI
~.. . :':'f.;iHf $0.34
....,..,..,-,....--.--..,.
,.",'. $74.U,' $0.40
t\Jiio7]IHi:' $0.57
'---'-"','-""'"
':.j:..,$1....7f. $0."
,:{},-'.j~).tf $0.78
.......:$lr..II4. $0."
. 'SllllI...' $1..'
..:,',': U:I2.lla. $1.2'
.' tt4S...a:' $1.2.
.,:.'...... tt.o,ro' S1 52
,..,:....t.t.l7.. $1.53
.,.:'.'-p,,: $'..'
,:':,"::.:' ._.....: $1..2
...,-.,-':.,.,.,:.:.,.:.......,'_...:.
~'4CI...n" $2.1'
" n*01k $0..'
:.'.....:.jsti.. $0.74
, O~ I 0:$. S1 1 1
.:::02:MiJCi'. S1 .2'
':::::0281;",: $1 .4.
'$3t1l0Cl $1 .71
.,::,;,;:::,:; -:;
............,.......,..,
"$3Oen' $1
;.:.:.:":".' i:,'-', .02
:i..l1d's $2 .20
...,.......,",..........,.
'FF,.$i!tt $2.40
,....,......,.........
,...SOli!$(( $2..7
............"...."....
'::':"";9: $2.02
... ,-f)!ft! $3.2.
F...Iii;", $3."
-:." :jmM $3..'
".
~ ~
~~
-l
o
:z
...
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
COMMERCIAL RATES
"M>I''''
"'''''''''0
W".'I!
ItATEAT
.-30-.
.....
--
.........
NEW
WASTE
RATE AT
7-t-88
$84.23 $5.11 $15.11 $43.41
$14.01 $5.ge $15.11 $53.~~
$108.53 $8.84 $31.43 $6~:~!..
$121.39 $10.14 $31.43 $8~:!:'
$151.28 $12.04 .$41.14 $92~ ~~
$110.48 $14.28 $47.14 "118.:.-~
$100.10 $15.84 $82.88 $12~.,4~
$233.82 $1 lUll $62.88 $15~.~
$244.18 $10.48 $78.51 $146.7.1
$288.31 $22.04 $18.51 $186.78
f--!202.70 I--$.'!o..... _'''.2.. ~$_1J~:.1~
$348.11 $27.7' $".2. $226.67
$348.81 $21.80 $110.00 $208.21
$405.41 $32.20 $110.00 $283.15
$115.32 $..1. 131.43 $14.12
~-'SS.22 '".~ ..!3' .'3 _~~~_8
_$211.50_ __.~e._!5~ _~82--=--8,~_ _~1,~~_
$231.35 $111.118 $82.~.~ ~-'55}~0_
$283.43 $22.58 $04.28 $188.58
$324.11 $25.84 $04.28 $204.58
$388.03 $20.20 $125.11 $213.03
$418.33 '33:37- $125.11 $280.25
$480.11 $36.82 $151.14 $288.41
$50...7 $40.55 $151.14 $311.88
$...... $44.81 $188.58 $327.3'
$.20.7. $48.40 $188.51 $SS...O
$_.7. $52.50 $210.00 $388.21
$725.35 $57.7' $21..... $447.83
OTHER
"T(
.,.....
- :-
.......
....
.-..
$.....
$......
$10.07
$10.01
'20."
$2....
$30."3
$30.03
$48.81
148.01
$".110
$5..110
$."'.
_...
$1".87
$1....7
$30.03
$30.03
$".110
$".110
110.88
"0.118
lDO.83
100.113
$1111.10
$110.78
$130.7&
$130.78
$0.48 $8.70 $0.110
$0.48 $8.70 $0.80
$0.08 $11.41 $1.80
$0.08 $11.41 SUM)
_~1.44 $28.11 $2.40
$1.44 $28.11 $2.40
$1.02 $34.81 $3.18
_~1.82 $34.81 $3.10
$2.40 $43.52 $3.00
$2.40 $43.52 $3.....
----12..._ _"2.22 $4.7..
$2... $52.2' $4.7"
$3.38 $80.02 $5.58
$3.38 $80.02 $'.'"
I'..' $24.110 $43.41 110.34 :::':ti1~..:.
$8.18 $2'.110 $SS.23 1S0.40 :t*'~;~
1S0.57 .,",....,.........
$10.23 $4SUO $....7 :,..n;"".
$11 .73 $40.80 $115.83 ISO." ,:,::=(:;,.,':411;.)
$14.44 $14." $02.10 1S0.7. FF,..";io.<I
$16.88 $14.80 $118.07 ....... .~lllI;4
$10.04 $DO.50 $120.40 "I .0' "........2:tt..tict'
.",",' ,.
:::::;,::,.' .:~ ..:
$21 ..0 $DO.50 $152.38 '" .24 .""'..,.'i1i~ii;ill;
$23.47 $124.40 $148.71 ". .2. ......:....iill$::tO'
$2<<I.M $124.40 $1118.70 "I .82\ .liiliiidii:
$28.08 $140.30 $115.12 -", .SS ::.ioiiiij;oii
'" .14' .". ............
$32." $.....30 $22...7 ..".:."Aoo,iil",
'" .12' ..,.--.....,..,...
$33.18 $174.28 $209.21 F:""S-i..ii:&ij'
$37..' $174.28 $213.1' "2.14' tJ.ioii..Ht
$"''' $'7." $1.10
_'0.'" $17.41 $1.eo
__1-'-'-02. ~._~ ~3.1~
11.02 $34.81 $3.11
$2.88 $52.22 $4.70
$2.88 152.'2 $4.71
$3.85 '81.M $e.30
$3.85 $80.83 S8.38
$4.81 $87.03 $7.....
$4.81 $87.03 $7.....
$5.71 $104.44 $.....
$5.77 $104.44 $.....
$..73 $121.85 $11.11
$8.73 $121.85 $11.18
$10.77
$'2.eo
$~0.03
$22.08
$27.35
$SO.13
$SS."
$30.78
$44.81
$.....
$".1"
$......
$13.77
$".'"
.......
$40.80
$........
$.......
$1040.30
$14D.30
$100.11
$180.18
$2......
$2......
$201.77
$2....77
$341.'7
$341.57
$74.72
$"'.7.
$131.112
1155.80
".....
1204.58
$213.03
1280.25
$211.41
$311.88
1327.32
$SS2..0
$SS..21
$447.83
'1
.. "si.~44
.~.d
t?.o:f
:l41..lf.
.'.',"",'. ."".,',."
':"'.":1382.011.:
:;$4401
'.<: : .....oti.
,'..":""'M1.R'
.'.'.-.'".'...'.'..,.,...,','...........'.-'
.,::?......,7li:
.'.;.."...........':'.':';.'.
':':<".llI71'.B.
.":..,y..:,..-,..'....,',."'.',.
""(O?"7,t.'
..'.',--'''.'' ''',.'',''
.t..it?1C)
;.:.,: :.,,0.1.:':
-... >-- ---------,.._._~-
ALE: CVCe03LF
7-14-03
RATE NO. .0'YI_1
LEVEL 'ON' PrU
MlM"U" RAlE 3 1 "0
~AXJ"U" RATE 3 1 30
;_.~NI..U.. RATE 3 2 7a
"AXJ"U" RATE 3 2 7a
MlNMU" RATE 3 3 117
MAXJ"U" RATE 3 3 117
/-Ml_~MU" RATE 3 " 158
MAXI"U" RATE 3 " 158
utNMU" RATE 3 5 105
~~M.!-'~':'~_E 3 5 ~~
utNMU" RATE 3 6 234
MAXI"U" RATE 3 6 234
MlNlMU" RATE 3 7 273
MAXJMUM RATE 3 7 273
MlMMU" RATE " 1 112
MAXIMUM RATE " 1 112
MlMMUM RATE " 2 104
MAXJMUM RATE " 2 104
r.~_~_..UM RATE " 3 158
MAXJMUM RATE " 3 158
-"'MMUM RATE " " 20a
MAXlMU.. RATE " " 20a
.......UM RATE " 5 280
MAJCI..UM RATE " 5 280
IMN"UM RATE " 6 "12
MAJa"UM RATE " 6 "12
n___.____
_MlM"UM RATE " 7 3M
MAXI..UM RATE " 7 3M
:>0
--l
--l
:>0
n
%
3:
,.."
:z
--l
o
:z
,.."
"""'-
W
,
'->
EXISTING
WASTE
RATE AT
a 30-03
ADO
--
-.....
..' .o.aa
"'i'>'f~;lIlt
";>;1"");&( " .07
.--,--..,.....'..,..'....'.,...
;;;.~...~... tl .53
. 'll~;. " .7a
;;......b.s $2 .00
.... ........
......,.$""1<'"',. '2.88
.,........Silt:llO. $2.70
;..$891:",1 '3.1 2
;Sa.C27. '3.4.
;,..,....'h1:il.f $3.83
>;~ri.:liO $4.32
;{,'$e5ii;li.. $4.47
;s09il)., $5.23
."...........--.....
t}l~;Tt 'UI
.;.~tt:t!,.,. tl .1 5
$itr);.; '1 .40
--,--.-....--.......--.
......... "$fJlO" '1
", "'j .03
'i..;.4tllc"Jf $2.25
.;....ill2li.llt.' $2 .75
.lIOtJiIl) '3. 1 5
....$i.iiM '3.7a
...----..'.."--...,..
... $iilii\)i4' '3.00
;"'':-.IOtli:",. $4.78
......--..'.--...--..--.
.'.;.11$0".... $4.811
,fhoHl! ....2
;,ft..:lM! 'a. 1 5
"~'~ ....5
'~CllM,l!(i '7. I 0
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
COMMERCIAL RATES
_~"J
..--
....iTt!:
U"'A.
8-30-8
. .. LANORLL INCREASE BASED ON % OF COMPONENT - NOT
RATE COMPONENTS RATE MOOlRCAlIONS
'''ANCHia. OTHE" I.AND"'U FEE I FMeCH.
FEE ..... "ATE.'-: AnI IINCIIIF.AaE I"lEI.
COST INCREASE .. NEW
NEW RATE COMPONENlII ..... WASTE
F""NCHI.I! I LAND"u..1 OTHI:" - RATE AT
FEE ..... UTI! MTE ......... 7-1-83
$1.44 $28.11 $2.40
$1.44 $28.11 $2.40
$2.l!UI $'2.22 '4.10
$2.88 $52.22 '4.10
$4.33 '7..33 17.10
$4.33 $78.33 17.10
'5.77 $104.44 '0.50
$5.77 $104.44 '0.50
$7.21 $130.55 $11."
-$?~~ c!'-3055 $11.88
$8.G5 $158.88 $14.37
$8.85 $158.88 $14.37
1--"0.0. $1112.77 $18.77
$10.09 $182.77 $18.77
....87
$18.48
$28.01
.3\....
$30.22
$47.32
$52.22
....04
~...20
$70.111
$80.30
$82.43
$gft.44
$M.07
$188.77 $13.27 $47.14 $1De.3e
$202.00 $18.08 $47.14 $138.87
$201.77 $23.22 $84.28 $174.27
'337.43 $28.85 $84.28 $218.~
'402.54 $32.04 $141.42 $229.0S
_~504.28 $40.13 $141.42 $322.71
"3'.7. $42.84 $188.58 $304.58
$SOS.04 '47.35 $nS.58 $350.12
$880.75 $53.22 $235.70 $370.83
$731.37 $58.20 $23S.70 $437 .'!..~
$828.32 $85.D2 $282.84 $470.58
$S55.10 $68.06 $282.84 $504~.!.
$1.001.04 $70.l5G $320.90 $501.39
$1.034.18 $82.30 $320.OV $821.90
'174.80
$74.89
$140.30
$1 40.30
'224.0.
$224.08
1200.77
'200.77
$373.48
$373.48
$448.18
$448.18
$522.85
$522.85
1t00.30
$138.87
$174.27
'21 e.30
$228.0S
'322.71
'304.50
$350.12
'''7'''3
$437.48
$470.5&
$504.28
$501.30
'&21.00
ao...
al.071
al.53
at.7.'
a2.00'
a2.""
a2.70
-a".12
a".....
a".a3
a4.32
- a4.47
a523
a5.41'
ttli'.,:i:4
.......1230.111"
.............----.--..
.... .,SllCi~i4'
..,:,..::...........:.'.'.:.-...:....
""*55'
....... ..
':C";::;;:. .. . . .~. .,.::
"..--....--...
"--.--"""""""
. ....-2....
":;;:44
:. . .w.7i"
..-.
.. .......11.."f.
.s,
.....--.""......--.
...... .....--...
...... .. .
....... S1.5.0t..
..'::' '..71J1t..
..1 00$.<10
'...-0:10.40',
.i.P5.....
'41 o;lll..4..ti
-'-;.~-
.......
.....
--
'20."
'20."
"0.00
$50.00
$80.84
$S8.84
'''0.70
$118.78
$148.74
$148.74
$170.80
$170.80
$208.83
'200.83
'30.03
'30.03
'70.88
$78.88
$110.78
$118.78
'150.72
"50.72
"00.85
'100.85
$230.58
'230.50
1270.51
$270.51
.'
'21..7a $17.41 '02..' $138.40
1283.7. '20.00 $82.8S $178.84
'300.73 $28.42 $125.71 $214.150
$427.87 $34.03 $125.71 $287.83
$528.12 $42.11 $188.58 $208.45
$800.88 $47.80 $188.58 $3&4.30
$721.40 $57.41 $251.41 $412.58
$782.02 ....... $251.41 $440.98
$818.44 $73.08 $314.27 $531.08
$835.10 $74.42 $314.27 $548.48
$1.115.82 $88.81 $377.12 $849.00
$1,118.05 $03.50 $377.12 $705.33
'1,313.10 "04.51 '430.00 1750.70
'1,373.10 $100.28 '430.00 $823.83
'1.02 '34..1 '3.10 '20." '00." '138.40 - au !II ~ :':"llt~:
$1.02 $34.111 $3.10 124.1. '00." '170.04 al.40' ~;;W
'3..' ....83 $8.38 '3'..' "00.'. $214." al.03 $.aKiii'
$3.S5 ....83 $8.30 $40.42 $1OV.18 '287.03 "225 ijilii8ill
$5.77 $104.44 $8.58 $51.89 .no.77 '200.45 "2.7'" ..{j.....idil
"".1"' mnll
$5.77 $104.44 '0.50 $57.38 $208.77 '_.30 ::::;:::::. , ,': ::~. ;:
$7.80 $130.25 $12.71 $70.10 '_.30 $412.51 "".7a ....tt..iiiiii
','.''''''''''--,--',''
$7.89 $ 130.25 $12.71 '73.42 '300.30 $440.05 "".05 ;"$OiM'it
$9.81 $174.07 $15.07 $80.De $407.05 $531.08 a4.70 .ll.li:iiCi
$0.81 $174.07 $1 5.07 '00.40 '407." $545.40 a4..a .....tti:tii'
$11.54 $208.88 $UU7 "07.07 "07.54 ....0.00 . "5.82' .l~;iii
" 1.54 $208.88 $10.17 $112.78 '''7.54 $705.33 aa.I!II ,r...iI:4i
$13.48 '243.eo '22.30 $1 2...7 'e07.13 $750.70 atl.a5 ,r/ll!s,eli'
$13.48 $243.88 122.38 $131.84 "'7.13 $823.03 a7.10 il:Miili,
ALE:CVC893LF
7-14-03
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
COMMERCIAL RATES
_1"1
..._. . ""LANDALL INCREASE BASED ON " OF COMPONENT - NOT
WAITI! RATE COMPONENTS RATE ..OOIFlCAll0NS
RATE.T fRANCHISE OTHIER LANOFU,L FlEE nwrtCMI.
8-$0 OS FE! _,... RATE." ADI lINe..... fEE
COST INCREASE "" NEW
NEW RATE COIllPONENTI .... WASTE
'-RANCHIB! I LA"DALL I..ontf" ..- RATE AT
FEE _.... MY. MY. -.- 7-I-lIS
RATE
LEVEL
EXISTING
WASTE _
NO. WKL~J __I RATE AT .......-
BINS "'U 8-30-8S ftAIIUDI
.......U.. RATE 5 1 85
"AXI"U" RATE 5 1 85
"'''MU'' RATE 5 2 130
~~_~~RAJE 5 2 130
MtMMU"AATE 5 3 185
MAXlMU" RATE 5 3 1.5
""MU" RATE 5 4 280
--
..AXI"U" RATE 5 4 280
...~_~~_'!~~'!! 5 5 325
..~.MUM_~AT~__I-.-_,~.J___._5. ~~
...~~.!'!'_'!~!E_ 5 6 ~
MAXlIIUM RATE 5 6:t80
.-
.......U.. RATE 5 7 .55
..AXI"UM RATE 5 7 .55
MI""U" RATE 6 I 78
"AXI..UM RATE 6 1 78
.......U.. RATE 6 2 158
..AXI"UM RATE 6 2 ",e
.......U.. RATE 6 3 234
MAXlIIU" RATE 6 3 234
MI""UII RATE 6 4 S'2
..~~~~ RATE 6 4 SI2
"'MMUM RATE 6 5~
-- --. -..
MAXlMUU RATE 6 5_
""MUM RATE 6 6 ....
MAXIMUM RATE 6 6 4'"
",,,MUII RATE 6 7 ...8
MAXI"U" "ATE 6 7 548
> .......
~ ~
n
~ \
g ~
o
:z
,...,
$281.15 $21.34 $78.57 $188.24
$322.81 $25.89 $78.57 $218.55
$411.18 $31.54 $157.13 $277.08
$525.49 $41.82 $157.13 1328,54
$680.20 $54.14 $235.70 $390.44
$689.83 $54.90 $235.70 $399.23
$8.1.33 '71.41 $314.27 $511 .455
$030." $74.08 $314.27 $542.55
$1,107.47 $88.14 $392.84 $8245.50
1--$!.223.~ 1--....7~0_ ~~~.:..S_4 1--_$733...:~
$1,322.452 $105.28 $471.40 $745.SHI
$1,4S0.33 $117.81 $471.40 $801.12
$1.505." $12..2. $549.07 $....12
$1,4510.81 $128.81 $548.07 $940.04
$2.40 $43.52 $S."
$2.40 $43.52 $3."
$4.8t $87.03 $1."
$4.S1 $87.03 $7."
$7.21 $130.55 $11.ga
$7.21 $130.55 $".8S
f---~.c~ $174.07 $15.07
$0.81 $174.07 $15.87
$12.02 $217.58 $10.07
$12.02 $~17.~_ $10.87
_$~"'E f-~281.10 $23.M
$14.42 $281.10 $23.SHI
$18.82 $30'.82 $21..5
$18,S2 $304.82 $21..5
::~ :n..:t~, $1 .4'
'(i'~l,a!i: $' .71
_do. ..._,_.._.'.'
.;"''''._,..,-''.-''''.'
(..,4fllii>>: $2.48
...,. .'~1S' $2.78
\t:t;.5f.~':.\; $3.54
.-.--.- ........,.._"
,.,.""'.....e,2:f $3. eo
..(','~....iiMi. $4..7
'. $920 ".
:::::::::::~O4:: $4.88
/S1.','lotitf $5.7.
',' .t ",,:1Ii $..40
,""'I',.$,lIi7$' $8..1
,I.ri:M $1.15
liim.i84. $U8
dlfioli;M $8.'5
$311.45 $25.28 $.4.2. $1.1."
$382.44 $30.'S $84.28 $251.13
$583.70 $44.87 $188.58 S33O.38
$813.88 $48.S5 $....50 $378.47
$005.'S $&4.08 $282.84 S'58.22
$855.01 $811.04 $2.2..' $50'.13
$1,041.81 $S2.GO $377.12 $581.50
$1.....118 $8.... $311.'2 $.53.43
$1,281.44 $1~1.ga_ J471.4C!- ~708=--O!'~
$1,424.44 $113.38 $471.40 $830.87
$' .538." $122.25 $505.88 $84S.13
$1.780.24 $140,OS $585.68 $1,054.48
$1,810.41 $144.08 $85G.M $1,008.38
$2.043." $152.Sit $859.SHI $1,220.53
.,g.'i:,in: $' .87
/$38Oi., $2 .03
-,-,..,...-...-.'.-.'-"
(i$lMIO:all. $2."
{:,iitoillll $3.22
i?,&oil:... $4.1 .
?,:..'$1I5O'i$.t. $4.41
.ni$liili $5.4'
?{dll:" $5.84
? sllit...dii $8..5
.+.,t;iiCi, $7.44
.i5ri;1iii $1. .1
",1"1..,, $0.21
i!iili,'jj'i; $0.40
Jil9..1ijl $1 0."
$2... $52.22 $'.7.
$2.S1 $52.22 $4.7.
$5.11 $104.44 $..50
$5.77 $104.44 S..50
$U5 $158.118 $14.37
$U5 $158.845 $14.37
$11.54 $208.88 $10.17
$1'.54 $208.88 $1..11
1---~...'2_ S2_45!:! ~_ ~2~"-~
$14.42 $281.10 $23.M
$17.30 $313.32 $28.75
$'1.30 $313.32 $2S.75
$20.10 $385.54 $33.54
$20.18 $3fJ5.54 $33.54
$25.33 $'24.4. $.....24
$28.811 "24.40 $2".55
$'5.53 $2....7 $211.0.
$48.S0 $2....1 $32..54
$88.12 $313.48 $300.44
$88.S8 $373.48 $_.2S
sa7.38 $407.85 $511.85
$va.oe $'.1.11!1 $542.55
$101.10 $822.43 $828.50
$111.37 $.22.43 $133....
$128.22 $148.02 $145.08
$141.78 $7".02 $801.12
$'54.1. $87l.41 $....12
$158.88 $81l.4' $......
$30.05 $1'..38 $'07."
$35.22 $140.31 $251.13
$54.'5 $2".11 $S3O.38
$511.44 $208.11 $31..41
$78.45 $_..5 $450.22
$82.42 $448.'5 $!I04.1S
$102." $"1.54 $50....
$10..27 $"7.54 $853.43
$125.04 $148.02 $70.."
$137.32 $1".02 $830..7
$.51.00 $8M.31 $8....S
$188.S3 saas.31 '1,054.48
$177.82 $1.045." $1."'.38
$108.13 $1.045." $1.220.53
._-..,-.-':....,-...."..-:-'-:-:.:':--_.,'
...... ""0''''
::::::::::::"f":,:-~"', ,;,.:::
."-.-.--...-......,-,.'..-".
..... '-I~
;::::::::::'-~;::..::
...'.._..'_-.-.-s.',',...,.........-_....
",'.' .!WI.....,
:::t:r,iii,C,,::
. . 0:16.,""
.01lt.3',
..125.'"
,. ".851:27'
"$1'487.,"'
. St e.',2$"
:,.. 172.C18'.
.tn'w,os'
".' lie03.~
$~;if
illiiiliiM'
,'...\......ill6:4If:
""",'iilciill:1':
IlliMiili3'
1: '.' iiiti'
("',.':.....'...,:.&
let.ili:
., .,.:.,.
'.,'.ii.ll'
Jil;,,!!:..?
nm:~,
1~";
. .
I!Nnll1!
OATE
--
$4...1
$40.81
$....S
$".83
$140.74
$149.74
$180.85
$180.85
$24g.58
$248.58
$2.....
$2911.48
$34..3.
$34..30
$SO."
$SO."
$11..1.
$11"-1.
$17....
$.1....
$230.50
$230.50
$2.....
$2DSJ.48
$S".31
$358.37
$4'0.21
$410.21
ALE: CVR.93lF
RA
7-20-03
.. LANDFILL INCR
EXIIITING UNAOJUSTED
WASTE ADO WASTE RA
RATE AT SETTlE"NT RATE AT FRANCHI
0-30-05 YEAR 2 ...OJ 8-S0-.5 fEEII.O
COLUMN: IA} ,., 1".81 'C}
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 10.0'EI
SINGLE FAM'lY I$Hit!!1 SO.ll I I $11.2~_ SO.8
wm ,*rrs AFl'EAOME EACH .ADD1"IOMAl ","IT ~~:<$$_~~J SO.081 $8.44 SO.6
TRAILER PARKS & MOTELS (CENTRAL LOCATION):
MINIMUM PER MONTH $19318 SO.21 $20.19 $1.6
lWO TI MES WEEKLY $1114 SO.08 $7.82 SO.6
$\152 SO.09 $9.61 SO.
THREE TIMES WEEKLY ':{; -~: '::
FOUR TIMES WEEKLY $lliltl SO.11 $11.29 SO.
DAilY PICK UP I. TlMESl $tli}fili SO.13 $12.79 $1.
TRAILER PARKS (INDIVIDUAL CAN SERVICEI PER UNI
ONE COllECTION WEEKLY l$Ili:!$1 SO.081 I $8.441 SO.
lWO COllECTIONS WEEKLY $'lQ';'t!/1 SO.ll I I $10.901 SO.
SENIOR .YELLOW BAG' PROGRAM:
2. 8AG PURCHASE J4.4Alll tf4. ~1-~'
II 1...0 PU"C~~~.~I!UV!"!O T~HOMI! J}1~~~t~] _ $44~65 m _$3.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL:
UP TO 121 40 GAL CONTAINERS
ONE TIME WEEKLY $1~' SO.12 $12.37 SO.
...-. ...
lWO TI MES WEEKLY $2liinu; SO.22 $22.22 $1.
THREE TIMES WEEKLY $32(1l3 SO.33 $32.76 $2.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
RESIDENTIAL RATES
EASE BASED ON % OF COMPONENT - NOT COST INCREASE..
NEW
RATE MODIACAllONS NEW RATE COMPONENTS ..... WASTE ENTIRE
OTHER LANDFILL FEE FRANCHISE OTHE" SETTLEMEH RATE AT RATE
AA,. ./1I2...0J llNCI'IEASE 'EE RATE YEAR 2 AOJ 7-1-.' IlClJACATlOM
'0' IE' '" '0' ,C} '" ,E' 1-81 VI ~-AI
IO.F+G! IC+I+IE-a,
$3.70 I $6.70 I SO.11 L~ SO.89 $5.85 $6.70 SO.ll $'13)33 $2.15
$3.70 $4.08 SO.11 $2.04 SO.67 $5.85 $4.08 SO.08 $'lQiSf $2.15
'E
~
~
o $3.70 $14.89
2 $3.70 $3.51
76 $3.70 $5.15
89 $3.70 $6.70
01 $3.70 $8.08
IP
I
...0
)>
T:
67
86
SO.ll $2.04
SO.ll $2.04
SO.ll $2.04
$0.11 $2.04
SO.ll $2.04
I---~~fff=:~
~1~}:~:~:~::~~1 In ::llF~r:~
98 $3.56 $7.83
76 $6.38 $14.08
59 $9.41 $20.76
SO.10 $1.96
SO.19 $3.52
SO. 29 $5.19
$1 .60 $5.85 $14.89 1~.211 $22113
SO.62 $5.85 $3.51 ISO.08 $iU!9
SO.76 $5.85 $5.15 (SO.09 $tHet
SO.89 $5.85 $6.70 ISO.l 1 $1It~
$1 .01 $5.85 $8.08 ISO.13 $'li!';!!1
(SO.08)$1:$1
SO.11$1:!\94
$2.15
$2.15
$2.15
$2.15
_$2.15
$2.15
---..-----
$2.15
r~:t54l1 $8.40
~!!,9~. IH$8'-40
SO.98 $5.63 $7.83 ISO.12 $14\$li
$1.76 $10.09 $14.08 ISO.22 $li5';71
$2.59 $14.90 $20.76 lSO.33 $3t;9li
$2.07
$3.71
$5.49
FILE: CVce03LF
7-28-03
RATE
LEVEL
w
,
.D
iN
MlNUUW RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
MtNMUY RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
MINMUW RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
NlMMU.. RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
MINMUM RATE
MAJQMUM RATE
MlMMUM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
MlNNUW RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
NO. WKLV! ,_I
81N8 P(U,.J ...~J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
EXISTING
WASTE
RATE AT
8-30-03
.3
13
28
25
30
30
52
52
55
55
75
7.
O'
O'
risi$lJ~;
...----...........,'-..".
/u.'M~f'
~tt~:::_,'.di<~5::
....-.-.-.-.-..-'--.-....
..... ".--..-----...
"/$1.~,n.'
................",.....
...... ....-'-......'.
:t/t.,,!ii(J;.iit:f
"""stl'li;Il4'
/."St'98:0&
".:.c2 ':.cO'
"""". 32,,,,,.
'."i.~iiiJ.'
'/siJ\iHo
SilliG?
.......sJiiJilri..
if/saMi.
.....'.'......."....
......-....-...-....---..--..
....SilO. .~. "'111'"
....., ,.
...... ..
':':':':::'" .....-... n':'
..,.
"'11~['"
YEAR:rAD.l
$0.34
$0.40
$0.57
$0.68
$0.79
$0,95
$1.04
$1.24
$1.28
$1.52
$'.53
$1.84
$1.82
$2.14
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
COMMERCIAL RATES
UNAD.lustED
WAITE
.. LANDFILL INCREASE BASED ON % OF COMPONENT
RATE COMPONENTS RAn: MODIFICATIONS
RATE AT FRANCHISE LANDfIll OTHER LANDf1ll fEE
. 3O-D3 fEE 8.0'4 .." RATE efWZADJ INCAEA.
$64.23 $5.11 $15.71 $43.41 $0.48 $8.70
$74.91 $5.96 $15.71 $53.23 $0.48 $8.70
$108.53 $8.64 $31.43 $68.47 $0.96 $17.41
$127.39 $10.14 $31.43 $85.83 $0.96 $17.41
$151.28 $12.04 $47.14 $92.10 $1.44 $26.11
$179.49 $14.28 $47.14 $118.01 $1.44 $26.11
$199.10 $15.84 $62.66 $120.40 _$1.92 $34.81
$233.82 $18.61 $62.86 $152.38 $1.92 $34.81
$244.76 $19.48 $78.51 $146.71 $2.40 $43.52
$288.31 $22.04 $78.57 $186.79 $2.40 $43.52
$292.70 $23.20 $04.2' $175.12 $2.88 $52.22
$348.71 $27.75 $G4.28 $226.67 $2.88 $52.22
$346.81 $21.60 $110.00 $209.21 $3.3e $60.92
$405.41 $32.26 $110.00 $283.15 $3.36 $60.92
..NIIIUM RATE 2 1 25 slNN# $0.61 $115.32 $9.18 $31.43 $74.72 $0.96 $17.41
.,--.--.--,..,..""..,
MAXIMUM RATE 2 1 25 .."$11i7:!ii $0.74 $138.22 $11 .00 $31 .43 $95.79 $0.96 $17.41
MlNMUM RATE 2 2 52 .. .$2.6i,,9 $1 .11 $21 1.50 $16.83 $62.88 $131 .82 $1.92 $34.81
MAXIMUM RATE 2 2 52 :"2~J6 $1.25 $231.35 $18.89 $62.86 $155.60 $1.92 $34.81
--..,--".,',.....--',..
"MMUM RATE 2 3 7' :'$""iOll $' .48 $~-~,:,!~ $22.5e $G4.28 t--~~,~-:,~- ___$a.! 1-$5222
-- n'n -
MAXIMUM RATE 2 3 7. """3tii,iXi.' $1.7, $324.71 $25.84 $04.2' $204.59 _$_2.88 $52.22
.'.'.;:.;:.',............,',....
MlMMUM RATE 2 4 .04 ;;:;: $3Oijih.; $1.92 $368.03 $29.29 $125.71 $213.03 $3.85 $69.63
MAXIMUM RATE 2 4 .04 :" iiill1Hil $2.20 $419.33 $33.37 $125.71 $260.25 $3.85 $69.63
'.","","''''''''''''''
MlMMUM RATE 2 5 .30 ',,'i!ttl,r $2.40 $460.17 $36.62 $157.14 $266.41 $4.81 $87.03
MAXIMUM RATE 2 5 .30 triJ:i~i.t $2.67 $509.57 $40.55 $157.14 $311.88 $4.81 $87.03
....',',".....,..."....
MINIMUM RATE 2 6 .5<1 '$lI!ttlllll $2.92 $560.48 $44.61 $188.58 $327.32 $5.77 $104.44
MAXIMUM RATE 2 6 .5<1 ~~fr(iitj~iio.:: $3.26 $620.78 $49.40 $188.57 $382.80 $5.77 $104.44
MlNMUM RATE 2 7 112 *ll!tti$t $3.45 ~.79 $52.59 $219.~~8.21 $6.73 $12~:~~
MAXIMUM RATE 2 7 112 ...*iidl~ $3.81 $725.35 $57.72 $219.aD $447.83 $6.73 $121 .85
~.Gl tal I
lESS
NEW
WASTE
RATE AT
7-1 -83
NOT COST INCREASE ..
NEW RATE COMPONENTS
FRANCHISE LANDFIl.L OTHER
FEE AATE RATE
lEI1lf.ENI
""'AR2ADJ
$5.11 $24.90 $43.41 fSO.34 /{:::~:~n:.7$jll$':
$596 $24.00 $S3.23 /$0.40..,,&:1;69
$8.64 $40.'0 $".47 1$0.57' """.$126:$3
$10.14 $49.80 $85.83 1$0.II8J'.$1'15:08
$'2.04 $74.50 $92.10 "0.79t '$,t".04
$14.28 $74.89 $118.07 -a().05 ::\\\$206,09
-f,::~ :::: ::::: ~~;~E~:;
$19.48 $124.49 $146.71 t!.1.28 .({($2:$$t46
::::: :::::: ::;::: ~:~;:if
f--!.27~~_ --.!!4030 _$g2"-,~ __~;"J.40r.Ol
$27.60 $174.28 $200.21 1.82 ......,...;..4011...:1
$32.25 $174.2' $253.'5 "2.14 "":::':::'$iiiii;~
ENTlflE
RATE
L!~'~~
$9.18
$9.18
$18.37
f--~
-1?~55_
$27.55
n$36"~
$36.14
$45.92
$45.92
$55.10
$5S.10
$64.29
$64.29
$9.18 $49.80
$11.00 $49.80
$16.83 $99.59
$18.89 $99.59
__~~_2~,:~_ ~~.~~.3~
f--.-!25.'4 $140.30
$29.29 $199.18
$33.37 $199.18
$36.82 $248.98
$40.5S $248.De
$44.61 $2G8.77
$49.40 $298.77
$52.59 $348.57
$57.72 $348.57
$74.72 "0.81 ,,::;;,,3$;08 $11.37
$95.79 ~.74 :::::~:n:.ffW5;I,5:: $18.37
$13...2 "1.11 ...,......."4ii!,,. $35.74
$155.50 '" 25 ,....'N2ilii&$ $35.74
$''',~ i-[$1.48),..n'''.mco& $55.10
$204-50 -"'71JPDfs.r..lO ~ $5510
:~::: ~::=~~t :~::;
$285.4' 1t2.40 ":iQilOJlO' $01.54
:::~:: ~::=;l $~~~:~
$312.80 /$326 """"\##\1(1.' $110.2'
__.$388.21 ~3.451 f\fitiitfi' $128.58
$447.53 1<3.61 {.8"'1;,2' $12....
ALE: CVce.3LF
7-2a-93
RATE
LEVEL
l
I-
v.>
- ,
t.J)
r::.
MlNMUM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
""MUM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
"'N..UM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
.......UM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
MlMMVM RATE
MAMMUN RATE
MI..MUM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
""MUM RATE
MAXIMUM RATE
NO.
81N8
w",vl ._1
PfU..JMOfIJ
EXISTING
WASTE
RATE AT
8-30-83
"fOii,",
.................,..:-'...-.'.._-...-,....-...
r$~M;~..
.....-.....,.,.:.:.:.-.,....,........'....-'..
::::t~t'2.~il..::
.......".--....--......
.......,.....,-----......
r:.....n~;~s.
...,.-,..,.....,-....-"-'...'-.
........:a."!l>\~$.
ts$ilIi,;f
sliiildii!
...s~Klii
......."(lijikH
......"nl:5...
ts~.:@i
.,..0.....'-,.............
$ii$i\ii
""""""".---,.---..
rt'.,l~jt...
"__,n'",_,"""""'_'
tjil!l\lii\t:!.
"'"
.rl~EItI
ftA"l!AD.I
$0.8e
$1.07
$1.53
$1.78
$2.09
$2.86
$2.79
$3.12
$3.48
$3.53
$4.32
$4.47
$5.23
$5.41
MINIMUM "AlE 4 1 52 ...tiii'#ilt; $1 .15
MAXIMUM "AlE 4 1 52 .'iltiilliiiK S1 .40
.....,....,.,--...--....
IIINIIUM "AlE 4 2 ~ ))."j:l$t;llii.' $~.:~3
.4lI!1l42'.
MAXIMUM RATE 4 2 1 04 .,... --.. $2.25
':::=:::='='.. ..: ':
NlNMU.. "AlE 4 3 1 58 W.u<i!$i $2.75
MAXIMUM "AlE 4 3 1 58 .sOii$f $3.1 .
"NMUM "AlE 4 4 201 .. '$1Ji!(lii $3.715
""".'.','.'.'.'."',"',"','"
MAXIMUM RATE 4 4 20a Is,"!oii $3.08
MlNMUM "AlE 4 5 280 II$IHiI!Oll $4.79
.,.:..',.:.;.;.:.;.:.'.'.'.','.',','.'.,
4 5 ...........$9:i(i'jf $4.88
MAXIMUM "AlE 280 ::=:=:=:t: ......~ .:}
MlNMUM RIllE 4 6 312 ..iHliHai $5.82
MAXIMUM "AlE 4 6 312 }:i~}i~~ia:j $15.15
"NMUM "AlE 4 7 384 .l$il!!~ $8.85
MAXIMUM "AlE 4 7 384 .l~;\Xi $7.19
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 3.
1 39
2 7a
2 75
3 117
3 117
4 15a
4 158
5 '.5
5 19'
6 234
6 234
7 273
7 273
-~
ENTIRE
RATE
..OOInCA1>l;IH
$27.55
$27.55
$55.10
$55.10
$82.M
$82.86
$110.21
$110.21
$131.7e
$137.7e
$165.31
$165.31
$1M.ae
~192.ae
$38.74
$38.74
.~?~~!.
$73.47
$110.21
~~~
$146.~
$148.94
$~~~.88_
$183.88
$220.41
$220.41
$257.15
$257.15
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RATE TABLE EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
COMMERCIAL RATES
._l""
............D
WASTE
RATE AT
8-30-03
FRANCHISE LANDFill OTHER
FEE ..0'" RATE "ATE
.. LANDALL INCREASE BASED ON % OF COMPONENT -
RATE COMPONENTS RATE MODIFICATIONS
NOT COST INCREASE .. NEW
NEW RATE COMPONENTS lEIS WASTE
FRANCHISE I LANDFILL I OTHER IllIlDltM' RATE AT
FEE RATE OAT' '{'fA"'ZIIDJ 7-1 .3
$166.77 $13.27 $47.14 $108.36
$202.09 $16.08 $47.14 $138.87
$291.77 $23.22 $94.28 $174.27
$337.43 $28.85 $94.28 $216.30
$402.54 $32.04 $141.42 $229.08
$504.26 $40.13 $141.42 $322.71
$535.78 $42.64 $188.56 $304.58
$595.04 $47.35 $188.5e $359.12
$668.75 $53.22 $235.70 $379.e3
_F31.37__$55.:!"- _$235.7."_ -.!437.4'
$828.32 $65.92 $282.84 $479.58
$855.19 $68.06 $282.84 $504.29
$1,001.04 $79.&6 $329.99 $591.39
$1,034.18 $82.30 $329.99 $621.90
$218.76 $17.41 $62.85 $138.49
$263.78 $20.90 $62.85 $179.Q4.
_$389:13 __ $2liJ.42 $125?1 _~~~4;..~_
$427.87 $34.03 $125.71 $267.93
$529.12 $42.11 $188.5e $298.45
_ S8OO.66_ ----'47.8~ ~!~ -L~.30
$721.40 $57.41 $251.41 $412.58
$762.02 $60.64 $251.41 $449.VfS
$918.44 $73.09 $314.27 $531.08
$935.19 $74.42 $314.27 $546.49
$1.115.92 $88.81 $377.12 $649.99
$1,176.05 $93.59 $377.12 $705.33
$1,313.19 $104.51 $439.08 $768.70
$1,373.19 $109.28 $439.98 $823.93
LANDF1ll FEe
..AOJ I..CAEASE
$1.44 $26.11
$1.44 $26.11
$2.88 $52.22
~~ $52~
$4.33 S78.33
$4.33 $78.33
$5.77 $104.44
$5.71 $ 104.44
$7.21 $130.55
_$7,~.... $130.55
$8.65 $156.66
$8.65 $156.66
$10.09 $182.77
~.5l.09 $182:?~
$1.92
$1.92
$3.~~.
$3.85
$5.77
$5.77
$7.69
$7.69
--,_..61
$9.61
$11.54
$11.54
$13.46
$13.46
$34.81
$34.81
_.~15_g,153
$6G.153
$104.44
$104:~~
$139.25
$139.25
$174...1?~
$174.07
$208.e8
$208.88
$243.69
$243.69
$1 3.27 $74.69 $1 06.38 1S0.55 t.,lit,".
$16.08 $74.69 $138.87 ISl .07 rr'.$i!2i!i"7
$23.22 $149.39 $174.27 ISl .53) $34,,(3'
$26.85 $1 49.39 $216.30 ISl .75 *mit.
$32.04 $224.08 $229.08 1S2.09 ........,.$...."At.
$40.1 3 $224.08 $322.71 1S2.OS :"$i!iii4;li5
$42.64 $298.77 $304.58 1S2.7. '.:.ii4&lio.
$47.35 $298.77 $359.12 1$3.12 :"102I1li.
$53.22 $373.46 $379.83 1$3." r'..'$5(l:tOS
$55.20 $373.~~ $437.48 ($353) ..r.$ile5:29'
$65.92 $445.1a $479.58 /'4.32 '{{,'$get:.,'
$68.06 $448.1 5 $504.29 1S4.47 .,iA,iI:oil'
1S523 ...--.-------"..",.
$79.66 $522.85 $591 .3. ..jiiiii;,lIt
$82.30 $522.85 $621 ... 1S5.41 .'.filiHi\1.4
$17.41 $99.59 $1 38.49 ISl.1 .' 'i!~:$1
5
$20.GG $99.59 $179.Q4. 1S1.40 ::,liiliiiii
____~~~.04_~ ~~_SKl.1~ - $~~-~ _.1$....3) ril.iih.i
$34.03 $199.1 5 $267.93 1$225 r"~lNica9
$42.1 1 $298.77 $298.45 1S2.75\ ";.'MG:ilii
$47.80 $298.77 $~.30 1S3.15 frs1li?iii.'
$57.41 $398.38 $412.58 1$3.76' r'..:'$Il.:5o"
1$3.... I:'. ..........
$60.64 $398.36 $449.96 II~.:...
$73.09 $497.95 $531 .05 1$4.7.) .$+01#;3#
$74.42 $497.95 $546.49 1$4.55 .l\h..~
$88.81 $597.54 $649.09 1$5.52 ii!SMJii
$93.59 $597.54 $705.33 1S'.15 ..................................
::::'. :':~~4ilt'
$104.51 $697.13 $768.70 1S5.55 Inl~,!w.
$109.28 $697.13 $823.93 1S7.1. {j"ji<<i,l1ii'
FILE, CVce93LF C ITY
RAT E TAB L
7-28-83 C 0 M M
EXISTING ~ADJU8fED .. LANDFIll INCREASE BASE
WASTE "'" WAUl: RATE COMPONENTS
RATE .0. W~~ :::J RATE AT wnu.aol AATEAT FRANCHISE LANDfill OTHER
lEVEL ,,., PlU M 8-30-83 vu.A:rAO.l 8-"" 93 FEEe.o.. RATE RATE
",.MUM RATE 5 1 85 . Jll$1il'bt $1 .41 $268.15 $21 .34 $78.57 $168.24
....-.,..-".-..-..--..,-,...
MAXIMUM RATE 5 1 85 Jl!l!#'tli $1.71 $322.81 $25.69 $78.57 $218.55
.__H..,_................
.....,.....-.-.......--.-,-.
5 2 ............'460..00.
...MIIIUM RATE ''''' ....... .-. $2.48 $471 .78 $37.54 $157.13 $277.08
':':'::::::::,---+ ..::
.......,.,..-.:.-.,.:.-.-.-...-.-.-.-,'....,...
MAXIMUM RATE 5 2 ''''' it'sn;'t~ $2.715 $525.49 $41 .82 $157.13 $326.54
......,-...-,-,......,....,--.
MlNMUM RATE 5 3 '95 :tt?,$.$7:i#i( $3.~ ~~~ _~~'_1..~ $235.7!! ~90~
MAla MUM RATE 5 3 '95 ,.',iillli,llii $3.150 $689.83 $54.go $235.70 $3GG.23
MI,.MUM RATE 5 4 280 ti,.Iii,..!! $4.157 $897.33 $71 .41 $314.27 $51 1.155
MAXIMUM RATE 5 4 280 J~$." $4.M $930.90 $74.08 $314.27 $542.55
"MMUM RATE 5 5 325 iiliCiiW'i $5.78 $1 ,107.47 $88.14 $392.84 $626.50
MAJaMUM RATE 5 5 325 J.lit1Jii $8.40 $1 ,223.92 $97.40 $392.84 $733.&8
"",',",""'"''''''''
""MUM RATE 5 6 390 it$tins $8.87 S1 ,322.62 $105.26 $471.40 $745.98
.."....,.....,.......
MAJaIllUM RATE 5 6 390 :(jYh~12\Mi~: $7.75 $1,480.33 $1 17.81 $471 .40 $891.12
""MUM RATE 5 7 455 .1lmiiliiI $8.28 $1,585.90 $126.21 $549.97 $909.72
MAJIIMUM RATE 5 7 455 Il.llw@iUj $8.45 $1 ,619.81 $128.91 $549.97 $940.94
MI..MUM RATE 6 1 7a ;;.#~iWiJ' $1 .87 $317 .45 $25.26 $94.28 $197.90
MAXIMUM RATE 6 1 7a , .~i%i# $2.03 $382.44 $30.43 $94.28 $257.73
6 2 sa ..........$llll<l......ji. $2.94 $563.79 $44.87 $188.58 $330.38
""MUM RATE , ":'::':':"... .~lJ.;:
MAXIMUM RATE 6 2 , sa .;t$..iCi,6il $3.22 $613.88 $48.85 $188.56 $378.47
....,..,........,..,',.
6 3 ........MW. $282.84
MI..MUM RATE 234 ~,,:,,::a . ,,>, . :: $4.19 $805.13 $64.08 $458.22
MAXIMUM RATE 6 3 234 iiJlIiii!$4' $4.47 $855.01 $~.04 $282.84 $504.13
MI..MUM RATE 6 4 3'2 iiliiiii:tiI $5.41 $1,041.81 $82.90 $377.12 $581.59
........,.,......,......
MAJIIMUM RATE 6 4 312 ;titiiiibl. $5.84 S1 ,119.68 $89.11 $377.12 $653.43
MI..MUM RATE 6 5 390 i),#;:/';iii $6.85 S1 ,281 .44 $101.98 $471.40 $708.06
MAXIMUM RATE 6 5 390 ifi4hiii\i $7.44 $1 ,424.44 $1 13.36 $471 .40 $839.87
"",::'::::""'::,:.':"":"",:
..MiliUM RATE 6 6 488 lei ilieloD $7.V7 $1,536.06 $122,2~ $5e5~~ $~~
MAXIMUM RATE 6 6 488 lt1iiliii!$ $9.21 $1,7eo.24 $140.08 $5e5.68 $1 ,054.48
MI..MUM RATE 6 7 548 ;ttJii!iii!i $9.40 $1,810.41 $144.08 $659.~ $1,006.38
MAlaMUM RATE 6 7 548 tiliiiki~ $10.89 $2,043.09 $182.59 $659.98 S1 ,220.53
OF CHULA VISTA
E EFFECTIVE 7-1-93
ERCIAL RATES
lJ.J
,
..D
f:1
D DN % DF COMPONENT -
MATE MODIFICATIONS
LANDFill FEE
8,/112,,0.1 IINCN:.o\8E
$2.40 $43.52
$2.40 $43.52
$4.81 $87.03
$4.81 $87.03
-~!~ ~~~~
$7.21 $130.55
$9.81 $174.07
$9.61 $174.07
$12.02 $217.58
$12.02 $217.58
$14.42 $261.10
$14.42 $261.10
$16.82 $304.62
$16.82 $304.62
$2.88 $52.22
$2.88 $52.22
$5.77 $104.44
$5.77 $104.44
$8.85 $156.ee
$8.65 $156.68
$11.54 $208.88
$11.54 $208.88
$14.42 $261.10
$14.42 $261.10
$17.30 $3~~~~~
$17.30 $313.32
$20.19 $365.54
$20.19 $365.54
NOT COST INCREASE .. NEW
NEW RATE COMPONENTS .... WASTE
FRANCHISE I LANDFill. I OTHER .Ir\BIIUII RATE AT
FEE RATE RATE YeA"1!ADJ 7 , 93
$21.34
$25.69
$37.54
$41.82
~4
$54.90
$71.41
$74.08
$88.14
$97.40
$105.26
$117.81
$126.21
$128.91
$124.49
$124.49
$248.97
$248.97
$~73.4e
$373.48
$497.95
$497.95
$822.43
$822.43
$748.G2
$748.92
$871.41
$871.41
$11lll.24
$218.55
$277 .08
$32ft54
$390.44
$39Q.23
$511.85
$542.55
$828.50
$733.88
$745.98
$891.12
$909.72
$940.04
{:"sli'ii:lie
,.f..-. $3457.0.
W'il;'~14
'::\$8107'
i$8' .:so
823.99
.'$ t 078....
:.:$"109.72'
1"3$,,$"
1 447.12
$25.28 $1 49.38 $197.DO "1 .1fT ;H.$l!)ii~
"2.03 ...,....".....,....
$30.43 $149.38 $257.73 ,:~: '~:lft
$44.87 $298.77 $330.38 "2.94 :;.;,liiEO$
$48.85 $298.77 $378.47 1S322 "i:iiiili
$64.08 $448.1 5 $458.22 1S4.19 "fsliiMi,ll$
$68.04 $448.15 $504.1 3 1S4.47' '$iotiil!i
$82.90 $597.54 $581 .59 1S5.41' ::it4iUUt
1S5.'4' .....,....,',..,"..'....
$89.1 1 $597.54 $653.43 J,$3.i':2io
....85 ...,.....,..,....
$101 .98 $748.$12 $708.08 $tll!lOi$t
$1 13.38 $74fS.G2 $839.81 "7.44 $i6iliiiW
..... ,,,,.
~_ $122.~ ~~.3~ $848.1 3 J$!J71 $fe5i:t,
$140.08 $8Q8.31 $1 ,054.48 1S92!l {f.t~().et)8"
$144.08 $1 ,045.89 $1 ,008.38 1S9.40 fJii;1iJijii3
$162.59 $1 ,045.159 $1 ,220.53 I "'0.89 n;:4'i"~
~.
ENTIAE
R"TE
ll00flCAnOll
$45.92
$45.92
$91.84
$91.84
~137.7e
$137.78
$183.158
$183.158
$229.eo
$229.eo
$275.52
$~~U52
$321.44
$321.44
$55.10
$55.10
$110.21
$110.21
$185.31
$185.31
$220.41
$220.41
$275.52
$275.52
$~0.82~_
$330.82
$385.73
$385.13
File No.
PUBUC HEARlNG CHECK UST
CITY COUNCIL PUBUC HEARlNG DATE
SUBJECT Q.-.~ ~..... ~ ~V'h' ~ r X' oO^....... \..J...:I;..... ~\.t.-.. r
LOO'fflOl4 ~........ ~,~.. t-' e...,-t, ~.. ,0' ~ c.. ~\ ~ ~f~.o
tl-ou.....-. .
j
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBUCATION - BY FAX ~; BY HAND_; BY MAIL
PUBUCATION DATE .., IIi 1"l3
I/2.iICj~
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
1/1'i19~
COPIES TO:
AdministraOon (4) ,./
Planning
v
Originating Department
Engineering 0/"
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
./
.,11~/q.3
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
-62-
13 -/j
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
will hold a public hearing to consider the following:
Consider rate increase for Laidlaw Waste Systems for pass through, costs
regarding County Landfill Disposal Charges. i
I
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you ~ay be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on
Tuesday, July 27, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may
appear.
DATED: July 12, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
J] //A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Considering rate increase for Laidlaw Waste Systems for pass through costs
regarding County Landfill Disposal Charges.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, July
27, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: July 14, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
/3--/)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemM
Meeting Date 7/27/93
Public Hearing To consider adoption of an interim pre-SR-
125 Development Impact Fee and to consider modification of the existing
Transportation Development Impact Fee
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager..J~ b<,6~
ITEM TITLE:
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_No X )
The purpose of this item is to take testimony in a public hearing. Staff proposes that the hearing
be continued to the August 17 meeting at which time staff will respond to questions and
comments from Council and the public and present a final recommendation. Alternatively,
Council could continue the item to a public hearing in a workshop setting on August 26.
Since the mid-80s, City staff has recognized that continued development in the Eastern
Territories was going to result in a significant increase in traffic on the planned road system.
Chula Vista's Transportation Phasing Plan (CVTPP) recognized that some major north-south
facility would be necessary to service continued development. To create a program to guarantee
the facility prior to more development approvals, Council on August 20, 1991, by Resolution
16336, approved a contract with Howard Needles Tamman and Bergendoff (HNTB) for
professional services in preparing a report which would analyze future transportation needs in
Chula Vista and help staff develop contingency plans in the event that SR-125 is not constructed
in a timely fashion. HNTB has completed the report which contains a recommended roadway
system, and a recommended financing plan as well as providing background and discussion of
issues considered in developing the proposal. The completed report is included in your agenda
packets.
Based on the conclusions of the HNTB report and discussions with property owners, developers
and other interested parties, staff is recommending adoption of a fee (pre-SR-125 DIF) to serve
as the primary mechanism for financing construction of the identified street facilities. Staff
recommends that implementation of the fee not become effective until January 1, 1994. The
recommendation to delay implementation to January 1, 1994 has been supported by the
developers and the Construction Industry Federation.
In addition, staff is proposing a comprehensive update of the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation
Development Impact Fee (Trans-DIF) which was established in January 1988 by Ordinance No.
2251 (amended by Ordinances No. 2349, 2289, and 2431). The last update to the Trans-DIF
was December, 1990. This update, originally planned for last year, was delayed to coordinate
with the proposed pre-SR-125 program. The "Interim Eastern Area Transportation Development
Impact Fee" (DIF) was based on a financial and engineering study of the major streets required
to serve anticipated development in that area with the premise that all new development would
share equitably in the cost of these major streets. The boundaries of the Trans-DIF area were
based on an area of benefit determination which included some territory outside the existing City
limits east of 1-805.
I'I~--/
Page 2, Item 19 A
Meeting Date 7/27/93
Over the past year, there have been a number of meetings involving all of the developers in
attempts to achieve consensus on the proposed fees. Staff is of the opinion that the developers
all understand the necessity for the fees, and generally support staff's proposal with respect to
the facilities to be constructed, their estimated costs, and the ability of the facilities to provide
the transportation capacity for which they are intended. The only area where staff does not feel
that there is a consensus is on how to equitably distribute the proposed interim pre-SR-125 fee.
The opinions expressed by the developers on the fee distribution issue range from a need for a
uniform fee throughout the eastern area to a fee based on projected usage of interim SR-125
facilities. This ranges from a two zone concept to a project by project basis. Some of the
developers indicated that a development closer to SR-125 whose traffic would use the facilities
more, should pay a higher share of the cost of that facility.
Issues that have been raised at these meetings include:
. What will happen to the fees if the toll road is constructed?
. What if CalTrans selects an eastern alignment?
. Issues relating to toll road timing.
. Issues relating to the proposed CFD.
To aid Council, staff has attached an "issues" paper to this agenda package as Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold the public hearing, take testimony, provide input
and continue the hearing to August 17, 1993. Tentative staff recommendations are as follows:
1. That Council accept the report prepared by HNTB and adopt an interim pre-SR-125 fee
as described in this report ($1,430 per EDU) to be effective as of January I, 1994.
2. That Council accept the report prepared by staff and modify the Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Development Impact Fee in accordance with that report.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff made presentations to the Planning
Commission on February 17, 1993, (workshop setting, no minutes) and to the Economic
Development Commission on March 3, 1993 (minutes attached). In both cases, the presentation
was informational, and no formal action was requested of the Commissions. Generally, both
Commissions focused on understanding the details and implications of the proposed fees and
their relationships to transportation needs; however, there were questions from the Planning
Commission regarding the appropriateness of requiring all developers to pay the same fee,
regardless of proposed usage of the "SR-125 facility". The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
has not been directly involved in development of the proposed program, however,
representatives of the Chamber have been informed through the presentation given to the
Economic Development Commission.
DISCUSSION:
In September 1990, the State of California identified four projects eligible for franchise
agreements which would enable private entities to operate these facilities as tollways. The
portion of SR-125 running from SR-905 on Otay Mesa to San Miguel Road is one of these four
projects. The State subsequently entered into a franchise agreement with California
Transportation Ventures (CTV), a private consortium to allow CTV to construct and operate the
tollway for a period of 35 years. 1~/I--cJ,.
,^
Page 3, Item~1'j
Meeting Date 7/27/93
The agreement allows CTV to choose not to construct the tollway providing that it exercises that
option before construction of the roadway commences.
CalTrans is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report that considers
various roadway alignments. Completion of the EIR/EIS will enable the State to designate and
adopt an alignment for the SR-125 facility. Route adoption is currently proposed for mid-1995
at the latest and will allow CTV to construct a toll road. CTV has indicated their desire to
construct the toll road as soon as possible if the project is approved. This is dependent also
upon local review and approval and working out a funding mechanism for the toll road.
With respect to the freeway alternatives, CalTrans has not identified or allocated funding for the
subject portion of SR-125 as a freeway. In the absence of construction as a toll road, this
portion of SR-125 is not currently proposed for construction by CalTrans. The City needs to
have its own program for an interim roadway should either a toll road or freeway not be
forthcoming in a timely fashion.
Staff has been aware for years that SR-125 is an essential regional facility, and that there are
limitations on growth that can occur in the South Bay without such a facility. Chula Vista's
adopted General Plan at buildout relies on a freeway in the Otay Mesa - San Miguel Road
corridor to provide sufficient transportation capacity. However the Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing plan studies have demonstrated that some facility less than a full 10 lane freeway could
satisfy Chula Vista's transportation needs in the short and medium term (15 years). Chula Vista
has been collecting some fees toward construction of an SR-125 roadway as part of an overall
major street system since 1985. Staff and property owners also recognize that it would not be
feasible, appropriate, or necessary to collect sufficiently large fees to enable the City to construct
a freeway-style facility which would serve regional traffic.
In January of 1992, the City Council approved a $360,000 contract with a team led by Howard
Needles Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB), an engineering consultant, to investigate alternatives
to a tollway or freeway, determine the demand for such a facility, size the facility and identify
aJ;! alignment and devise a financing program based on cost estimates for the facility. The
consultant also developed a phasing program. Other members of the team and their expertise
include NBS/Lowry (financial analysis), Wilbur Smith & Associates (transportation); Brown
Diven & Hentschke (legal); and Fieldman, Rollapp & Associates (financing mechanisms).
I. INTERIM SR-125 REPORT
In July 1992, HNTB produced a draft report which investigated the feasibility of
constructing a freeway-style four lane facility from Orange Avenue northerly to SR-125.
The rationale behind this proposal was the desire to avoid construction of "throw-away"
facilities, in which a road constructed to City standards would have to be demolished and
replaced with a road constructed to CalTrans' freeway standards. This alternative
produced a very expensive road, with high fees which, when combined with the
Transportation DIF fees (T-DIF), would have increased the total fee from $3,060 to over
$6,000 per EDU (compared with the current proposal to increase fees to $4,832 per
EDU). Many of the property owners expressed concern regarding the high fees, and the
/I//I-J
page4,fiem~~
Meeting Date 7/27/93
likely inability to receive any sort of refund when the freeway is finally funded by
CalTrans. They also questioned the demand and need for such a high volume facility.
As a result of this concern, HNTB was requested to investigate alternative networks that
utilized circulation element roads as much as possible reducing cost as well as demand.
HNTB responded with several alternative networks. All of the networks considered
Orange Avenue as the primary east-west facility to be constructed and a north-south
facility in the general vicinity of the existing Proctor Valley Road (from East H Street
to San Miguel Road). The fundamental difference between networks was how the
connection was made from the "Proctor Valley" facility to SR-54. Several alternatives
were reviewed, including considering the extension of Conduit Road and the widening
of Bonita Road (north of San Miguel Road) and Sweetwater Road. The alternative that
was selected for further study consists of the seven road segments shown in the following
table.
Factors that led to the selection of this network above other alternatives included cost,
available right-of-way, and potential environmental impacts.
Segment I Sweetwater Road (Bonita Road to SR-125)
Segment 2 Bonita Road (Sweetwater Road To San Mignel Road)
Segment 3 San Mignel Road (Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road)
Segment 4 Proctor Valley Road (San Mignel Road to SR-125 corridor)
Segment 5 SR-125 Corridor (The SR-125 corridor is the right-of-way reserved through
Eastlake and Salt Creek I)
Segment 6 Eastlake Parkway (SR-125 to East Orange Avenue)
Segment 7 East Orange Avenue (Eastlake Parkway to Sunbow property)
The study area or area of potential benefit was scaled to match the anticipated capacity
of the interim roadway. At this time, it was emphasized to property owners that the
nature of the study area was to approximate traffic levels and was not intended to
suggest any development entitlement or lock in any particular development phasing for
any particular proj ect.
Financing the Facilities
Construction of roadway elements previously identified would serve a total of 352,763
new or additional trips on the system (since July, 1990) generated from the Chula Vista
General Plan Area. Of the 352,000 trips, 228,314 can contribute financially to the
system. The remaining 125,000 trips fall into three categories:
I) development that has occurred smce 1990
(approximately 50,000 trips);
J~/J'"
,
Page 5, Item ) 'I ~
Meeting Date 7/27/93
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
".
: ...
I ....
L.._.-'
I
,-,
SEGMENT 1
SEGMENT 2
"'-",
---_! :
,
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
I,
\
'. .--~._.-"...-.~=;,
,-
~
o
._.._..1
SEGMENT 6 I
LOWER OTAY ~ I
RESERVO~ I
,
SEGMENT 7 I
.__..J
...-
/
-.--.-
._a-
QiAY VALLEY AVE
..----.-----.._.._ .t:...
~ ~ -.-
\ ",:
. ';i)
..-"
..-,.-
..-
..-
.,-
_._--._~--------..
LEGEND
.-
-"
~
'"
~ INTERSTATE
~ STATE ROUTE
_ _. STATE ROUTE 125 CORRIClOR
CITY STREET
o FULL INTERCHANGE
o PARTIAL INTERCHANGE
__.____ CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
No Scale
J'I~".r
Page 6, Item 1~19
Meeting Date 7/27/93
2) properties exempted from SR-125 participation
through development agreements.
. Kaiser Phases I & II (19,500 trips)
. Rancho del Rey Power Center (25,000 trips)
. Olympic Training Center (5,000 trips)
3) Commercial trips which are "passerby trips" (approx. 25,000 trips),
resulting from the change from 400 to 250 trips per acre for commerical
land uses.
The HNTB report projects that this would, when combined with other T-DIF
improvements, provide capacity in the transportation system to the year 2007.
A. DIF Fee for the Interim Facility
The cost of the proposed facilities (in 1992 dollars) is $27,953,000. Using cash
flow analysis methods, it has been projected that potentially $12 million in
bonds may have to be sold to finance construction. The cost of issuing bonds
and debt service is proposed to be included in the fee amount, raising the cost
of the facilities to approximately $32,650,000. Once the number of "benefitting
trips" and financing costs were established, a recommended fee per trip was
established at $143.00 ($1,430.00 per EDU).
Staff proposes that Council adopt an "Interim Pre-SR-125" fee, to be collected
at the time of issuance of any building permit for development of any property
in the Eastern Territories. The area that the fee would be imposed upon is the
same as that area responsible for payment of Transportation DIF fees. The
purpose of the fee would be construction of the seven facilities identified in the
HNTB report.
The table below shows the proposed Interim Pre-SR-125 Development Impact
Fee rate for construction of the above described facilities.
INTERIM PRE-SR-125
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Category EDU'S Proposed Fee
Single-Family Detached DU 1.00 $1,430
Single-Family Attached DU 0.8 1,144
Multi-Family DU 0.6 858
Commercial Acre 25.0 35,750
Industrial Acre 20.0 28,600
ILl/! '#
Page 7, Item--'-!l..- '"
Meeting Date 7/27/93
Staff proposes to delay implementation of the fee until January I, 1994. The
proposal is in response to concerns raised by developers and by the Construction
Industry Federation (CIF) regarding the imposition of such a large fee burden
in this economic climate. The date represents a trade-off in balance between the
desire to soften the impact of such a significant increase in fees with and the
fact that the pool of participants in the fee is essentially limited by transportation
capacity. This pool shrinks with each permit issued. The developers and the
CIF recognize that further delay might increase the fees significantly for the
remaining developers. Phasing in the fee (beginning with a lower fee and
incrementally increasing it annually) presents the same risk of placing an
inordinate burden on the later developers.
B. Bonding Needs for Interim Pre-SRI25 Roadway
As shown on the following chart, cash flow analysis indicates that there will be
sufficient funds to construct the first facility (segments 4 and 5) in
approximately 1999. There will not be sufficient funds, however, to construct
the second or third facilities in 200 I and 2003.
In order to have sufficient funds available to meet this need, the fee would need
to be raised so that the early developers would provide the cash on a timely
basis and the later developers would not have to pay. This, in staff's opinion,
places an unfair burden on the earlier developers.
Alternatively, the developers could front the money. At this time, developers
have indicated that the economic environment does not allow them to front such
large sums of money necessary to construct any of these facilities. Thus, it is
likely that bonds will be used to construct some of the facilities, with some
revenue stream to guarantee payment of debt service.
Under normal circumstances, the fees collected would be more than sufficient
to pay the anticipated bond debt service. However, this is not an "assured"
revenue stream. If development dropped off dramatically, at the worst possible
time (immediately after commitment of funds to construct the second phase), it
is possible that the fees would not be sufficient to pay the annual debt service.
The cash flow analysis for this scenario was developed in the HNTB report as
Table 8.5 (labeled "worst case"). This is literally a worst case scenario since it
requires development to completely cease immediately after commitment of
funds for construction. If development fell to zero the following year (for
example), there would be sufficient funds for almost 3-1/2 years of debt service.
Staff recommends that in the near future a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD) be established over the entire area of benefit so that an
"undeveloped land tax" could be imposed. After formation, staff would return
to Council to establish the actual tax burden to be imposed (if any is necessary)
on a regular basis. The tax would only be imposed on vacant, undeveloped land
within the area of benefit, and W;~:;;S;d?pay debt service (principal and
Page 8, Item II/A
Meeting Date 7/27/93
CASH FLOW
FOR INTERIM SR-125.
1993 1996
18
16
14
12 FEES
COLLECTEO.
10
8
~ 6
0-
...Jell
~z
0 4
...J
...J
:J:::I 2
cn-
<
u
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
- 10
5,000
YEAR
2000
2004
2007
PHASE I
CON STRUCTlON.
PHASE :II
CONSTRUCTION.
FINANCING
INCREMENT (2.8MI.
PHASE m
CONSTRUCTION.
15.000
20,000
22,831
10,000
E.D.U.'s (TENTATIVE)
NOTE: GRAPH SHOWING ANNUAL CASH FLOW BASED ON . 1,430.00
PER E.D.U. FEE.
1'/,-9 , r
Page 9, Item-'!lt1
Meeting Date 7/27/93
interest) on bonds and costs incurred in administering the interim SR-125 DIF.
Under normal circumstances, there would be no tax required; however, based on
worst case, the estimated tax would be $800 per acre. However, no tax would
be collected unless necessary.
Staff's intent is that the CFD, for legal and financial reasons would be the
identified fundamental revenue source used for payment on the bonds, but would
in reality be a backup or cushion for fees collected. Since fees alone should be
sufficient to pay debt service, development would have to fall to less than 1/2
the projected normal rate in any particular year for any tax to be imposed. If
this level of development impact was to occur, and at the worst possible time
(immediately after construction), some tax could be necessary to make up the
shortfall. As property develops, it would be removed from the rolls of property
subject to the "vacant land" tax and would receive a credit for any taxes paid
towards payment of interim SR-125 DIF fees when the property develops.
The City has not formed CFDs in the past. This mechanism has fundamentally
been used by local school districts for financing construction of facilities. It has
been utilized by other municipalities for construction of public facilities
including roads. The main advantage of CFDs are flexibility in establishing the
relationship between tax and benefits. Since the proposal is that the tax will
vary from year to year and would be eliminated upon development, this
flexibility removes many potential legal complications. The primary negative
aspect is the spectra of large developments being burdened with tax on
undeveloped land at a time when development revenues are low. The
developers are aware of this potential, and have not expressed any concerns.
Available alternatives to such a CFD include utilizing and relying upon potential
future supplements or funding mechanisms (such as State matching funds), use
of assessment district financing requiring developers to finance construction (and
be reimbursed as funds become available).
Supplements or matching funds tend to be difficult to predict on a long term
basis. Programs are subject to available funds and competing demands from
other agencies. Assessment districts have the disadvantages that they lack the
flexibility of a CFD and that they must be related to construction of specific
facilities (rather than a generalized program like a CFD). Developer financing
may be impossible due to the large outlays required for such major facilities and
problems in obtaining construction loans and has been experienced by the entire
industry recently.
II. THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (T-DIF) UPDATE
The existing Transportation DIF ordinance provides for collection of the fee ($3,060 per
EDU) at the time of building permit issuance and for periodic review of the fee amount
based on updated information.
)lf~ ."
Page 10, ItemJ!t..;1/
Meeting Date 7/27/93
The method of determining the DIP amount consists of estimating the cost of the
various street improvements in the study and dividing the cost of the number of
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) projected for the area. The EDU determination has
been based on SANDAG traffic generation factors for various types of development
utilizing a factor of 1.0 for a single family detached residence. Staff proposes to
continue using this methodology at the present, but to slightly modify the methodology
for fees paid on or after January I, 1994. Further discussion of the modification is
contained in "Commercial Land Uses". Projections for the type and amount of
development are based on best information available from the adopted and proposed
specific plans and the Chula Vista General Plan within the area of benefit.
This update consisted of several phases.
1. It was determined which of the major streets in the program had been
constructed, and how many EDUs of building permits had been issued or
committed. These were removed from the program.
2. The DIP street costs were revised as more information become available. This
includes adjustments for inflation.
3. Based on progress made by the Otay Ranch Project, staff recommended
inclusion of 2 villages from the Otay Ranch (staff recommended plan) in the
DIP. Thus, the southerly boundary of the DIP was modified to follow the
proposed alignment of Orange Avenue. Concurrently, land uses within the DIP
boundary were updated to include recent approvals (Kaiser, Bonita Gateway,
Power Center, etc.) Accompanying this was the need for additional street
facilities.
4. Certain facilities were proposed to be removed from the Transportation DIP and
placed in the interim pre-SR-125 DIF. These include portions of Orange
Avenue, EastLake Parkway and "SR-125 Interim Facility".
5. Staff analysis indicated that the current portion of the fee allocated to DIF
program support was not adequate. Staff recommends that the program support
component (which includes monitoring and projecting traffic and preparing
updates as well as normal program administration be raised from 2% to 4%.
Staff also recommends that the adopted ordinance require the 4% DIP support
be paid at the time the fee is normally collected. The reason for this is that
developers often construct facilities and receive credits which are applied to
building permits for their projects. While this simplifies many aspects, it leaves
the City without any funds to pay for support activities such as consultants for
monitoring progress or staff time until all credits are used up and remaining fees
are paid in cash.
As indicated on page 8, of Table 2 in the report, the following streets were deleted
because they were completed:
1'//1--/ ()
Page 11, Item~/I
Meeting Date 7/27/93
No. DIF Street Location Cost
I East H Street Through Rancho Del Rey $ 4.372.696
2 Otay Lakes Road Intersection with East H Street 328.921
3 Telegraph Canyon Paseo Del Rey to East of Paseo Ladera (south side) 350.037
Road
4 Telegraph Canyon 1-805 Interchange/Phase I 174.332
Road
5 Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerra Grande to Ridgeback Road 6,227,169
6 Central Avenue Bonita Road to Corral Canyon 190.000
7 Telegraph Canyon Phase I - Rutgers Road to EastLake Boundary 6,671,052
Road
8 Telegraph Canyon Phase II - Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive 11,118,765
Road
9 East H Street Phase I - 1-805 Modifications 577,155
10 EastLake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Southern High School 1,883.636
Boundary
II Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Club House Drive 1,251,299
12 East H Street EastLake Drive to SR-125 and SR-125 to Mt. Miguel 2,075,047
Road
13 Telegraph Canyon EastLake Boundary to Hunte Parkway 3,388,518
Road
GRAND TOTAL COMPLETED $ 38,608,626
Note: * = Under revision.
.
.
The following projects are proposed to be added to the T-DIY
No. DIF Street Location Est. Cost
I East Orange Avenue Eastern Sunbow Boundary to EastLake Parkway 7,272,000
(expansion from 4 to 6 lanes)
2 East Orange Avenue 1-805 Interchange Modifications 4,064,000
3 East Palomar Street Eastern Sunbow Boundary to Paseo Ranchero 3,120,000
4 East Palomar Street I-80S Interchange 2,673,000
5 Telegraph Canyon Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road 3,114,000
Road
6 East Orange Avenue Hunte Parkway to Olympic Training Center 5,104,000
7 Telegraph Canyon SR-125 to EastLake Parkway 1,493,900
Road Modifications
8 EastLake Parkway Fenton Street to Telegraph Canyon Road 980,400
Modifications
Jf7!'lf
Page 12, Item JIi~
Meeting Date 7/27/93
No. DIF Street Location Est. Cost
9 East H Street 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive 901,000
Modifications
10 Bonita Road Otay Lakes Road Intersection 105,000
11 Otay Lakes Road Ehnhurst Drive Intersection 70,000
]2 East H Street Otay Lakes Road Intersection 22],000
13 Traffic Signal 1broughout Eastern Territories 138,000
Interconnection
]4 EastLake Parkway EastLake High School Southern Boundary to East Orange 887,500
Avenue (Modifications to SR-125 Facility)
]5 East H Street Paseo Del Rey to Avila Way 682,000
]6 Bonita Road 1-805 to Plaza Bonita Road 188,000
GRAND TOTAL TO BE ADDED $31,013,800
COMMERCIAL LAND USES
When the DIF was established in 1988, the method of calculating fees was to tabulate
all land uses for undeveloped land in the Eastern Territories and, apply SANDAG
traffic model trip generation factors to each land use. The total estimated cost of the
facilities was then spread over the proposed land uses, based on trips generated. Staff
feels that methodology, while generally valid, places an inordinately heavy burden on
commercial properties. Many of the 400 trips per acre attributed to commercial are in
reality, "passerby" trips wherein the motorist may include a shopping stop in an overall
trip, such as stopping at a store on the way home from work, or stopping for gas, etc.
Under the existing fee, commercial property is paying a transportation fee equating to
$2.80 per square foot. Adding on the SR-125 fee would raise the transportation fees
for commercial property to $4.17 per square foot. It was believed by staff and the
developers that to raise the fee to this amount was not equitable, and certainly would
destroy any possibility of commercial development in the eastern area. The new
combined transportation fees for commercial property will still amount to $2.77 per
square foot.
Many of the developers requested that staff consider reducing the burden on commercial
land uses, stating that in this economic climate, commercial development will not be
economically viable with such a heavy fee burden. They feel that other uses
(residential, industrial, etc.) will still be economically viable with the additional fees.
Staff proposes that Council, adopt a revised fee, to take effect on January 1, 1994,
based on a new rate of 250 trips (25 EDUs) per acre for commercial land uses. The
proposed fees are shown on the following chart. The column labelled "Fee w/o
Commercial Subsidy" identifies what the fee would be if commercial land uses are
assessed at 400 trips per acre instead of the proposed 250 trips.
/9/9 ./,1
Page 13, Item1!L-1"9
Meeting Date 7/27/93
Present Proposed
Category EDD's Fee Fee
Single-Family Detached DU (1.0 EDU) 1.0 $3,060 $ 3,402
Single-Family Attached DU (0.8 EDU) 0.8 2,448 2,722
Mnlti-Family DU (0.6 EDU) 0.6 1,836 2,042
Commercial Acre (changing from 40 to 40/25 122,400 85,050
25 EDU)
Industrial Acre (20.0 EDU/AC) 20.0 61,200 68,040
Religious Institution Acre (4.0 EDU/AC) 4.0 12,240 13,608
Golf Course (0.8 EDU/AC) 0.8 2,450 2,722
Medical Center (65.0 EDU/AC) 65.0 N/A 221,130
REVISED EASTERN AREA TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(Effective January 1, 1994)
The proposal to delay implementation of the revised rate is designed to coincide with
the effective date of the interim pre-SR-125 fee.
The level or cost of fees in the Transportation DIF generally are affected by the
following mechanisms:
1. Addition of new land use areas and associated facilities.
2. Removal of facilities required for the interim pre-SRl25 DIF.
3. Restructuring of the trips associated with land uses.
As shown on the above table, the effects of I and 2 balance out, and would produce a
fee very close to the present fee ($3,060 per EDU). The third item is a proposed re-
distribution of the fee burden, removing some of the fee burden from Commercial and
transferring it to the other land uses.
III. COMBINED TOTAL IMPACT OF PRE-125 DIF, TRANS DIF AND OTHER
IMP ACT FEES
With implementation of staffs recommendations regarding fees, following is a chart
showing the status and total of development impact fees currently collected by the City
for common land uses.
1l//I'13
Page 14, Item 1'111
Meeting Date 7/27/93
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
I Land Use I T. DIF SR125 Total Land Use T. DIF SR125 Total
SFD $ 3,060 $0 $ 3,060 SFD $ 3,402 $ $ 4,832
1,430
SFA 2,448 0 2,448 SFA 2,722 1,144 3,866
MFA 1,836 0 1,836 MFA 2,042 858 2,900
Comm 122,400 0 122,400 Carom 85,050 35,750 120,800
Ind 61,200 0 61,200 Ind 68,040 28,600 96,640
. eatimate bBBed on 430 trips per acce (ootual varies wilh specific me
.... estimale based on BO lripa p<< acre
Included in your agenda packets are copies of the DIF 1993 Update Report to be approved by
Council as a part of the proposed ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the proposed fees will increase the fees for the
construction of related facilities. Most of the facilities under the TransDIF will be constructed
by developers who will front the costs and receive credit from fees due. The fees for the SR-
125 DIF will be paid to the City, the City will accumulate the funds and use them to construct
those facilities. No other City funds will be needed for these projects. The TransDIF for
developers will increase by 58% for residential and industrial land uses (II % for the TransDIF
plus 47% for the Pre-SR-125 DIF), and will diminish by 1% for commercial land uses. In
addition, the portion of the fees to be used to pay for the administrative costs, such as overall
monitoring, updating the programs and growth monitoring on the street system, will increase
from 2% to 4% of the total TransDIF and be set at 2% for the SR-125 DIF.
WPC F:IJIOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\SR125DIF.PH
I'I/!~/i
012293
File No.
PUBUC HEARlNG CHECK UST
,/'2.." 1'\30-
SUBJECT Ow_~ .k:. Q..J Hr "2..:l.S I ~.t...:t..- ~-t......- ~
1.9g.'FI6N ~~:A-' D'!.t ... ~ ~.O"~ LJ ~k...,;..
~ f"L Sr<.~\~ t:~~:" J 5..-'D1~' ~
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBUCATION -- BY FAX ~BY HAND ; BY MAIL
PUBUCATION DATE ., /1'" <+ ., I '2-~
CI1Y COUNCIL PUBUC HEARING DATE
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPER1Y OWNERS
NO. MAILED
PER GC 54992 Legislative Scaff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK .., I, '-\ 1 q.3
COPIES TO:
Administration (4) ,./
Planning /
Originating Departroent
Engineering ,/
Others
City Clerk's Office (2) ./
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
'/I""jq3.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
-62-
11/;1
---
//..;;
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California to consider the following items:
Amendment of Ordinance No 2251 to update the Eastern Area Transportation
Development Impact Fee
Adoption of the Ordinance establishing the interim pre SR-125 transportation facility fee
This generally affects areas East of 1-805. All Engineering studies and related documentation
are available for review at the Engineering Department, City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth
Avenue, City of Chula Vista, CA 91910.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, July 27,
1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, request
individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Lombardo De
Trinidad for information or your request at (691) 691-5034. Service for the hearing impaired
is available at 476-5342 (TDD).
DATED: July 12" 1993
BEVERLY AUTHELET
CITY CLERK
(f: \engineer\landdev\counnot.ldt)
jL/A-it
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
a public hearing to consider the following:
Amendment of Ordinance No. 2251 updating the Eastern Area Transportation
Development Impact Fee; and,
Adoption of Ordinance establishing the interim pre SR-125 transportation
facility fee.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this matter in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, July
27, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: July 14, 1993
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
) L/ /J ~ / ?
'~/ '.,i.
July 26, 1993
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Interim SR-125 and Transportation Development Impact Fees
Dear Mr. Goss:
EastLake Development Company is fully supportive of the City's efforts
to implement the interim pre-SR-125 Development Impact Fee. We
understand the need for and are in favor of providing transportation
system improvements which will maintain the City's threshold
standards.
During the development of the pre-SR-125 Financial Plan, the City
considered and incorporated a revised EDU calculation methodology
as it relates to commercial properties. The methodology revision
(commercial rate at 25 EDU's/ /acre in lieu of 40 EDU's/acre) was
deemed appropriate because the commercial properties were carrying
an excessive share of the infrastructure improvements in the Eastern
Territories. EastLake supports the concept of a reduced rate for
commercial properties but must ask that the City slightly modify the
manner in which the new rate is being applied.
Under the current methodology, a higher transportation fee burden is
being placed on commercial properties who have provided
Transportation Development Impact Fee improvements (in advance of
their actual need) and have yet to pull building permits. Those
commercial properties who have made no contribution to the
transportation infrastructure as of this date will be asked to contribute
to the system in a lesser amount (approximately $37,350 per acre) at
the time they request building permits. We must ask that the City
reconsider this portion of the revised fee structure. We would fully
support a new methodology which treats all yet to be developed
commercial property in a like manner.
/i/l i~
'/~i'~'
f" ,
.
F'
~.',._-
....
~
~
~
E'ASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula ,-"sta, CA 91914
(619) 421-0127
'AX (619) 421-1830
Letter to Mr. John Goss
July 26, 1993
Page Two
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
----
L
...
~"
"., ,.
. .'"
~
fASTLAKE
DMlOPMENT
COMPANY
CJS:sb
cc: George Krempl
John Uppitt
Cliff Swanson
Steve Thomas
;1/1-/ ~
900 Lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula Vista, CA 91914
(619) 421.0127
fAX (619) 421.1830
JU.. 26'93 1!l2: 15PM
P.212
PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, LTD.
A c;.lffO""'. 1.,m"." .P.,,~"."ilb'p
July Z6, 1m
v /, /
"':,-:,-t.):-;/~..- '
/t/.
Mr. George J(renlp.... 'Eliepatr 0Iy MuIIgI!r
ClTYOP CHI1LA. VISTA
2761'ourth Avenue
0tu.1a ~CA!MIO
7,b 7/'7.1'
I Ji (I,U.J-
(j
StlJOSCTr mOFOS1ID ~ SIt-125~OllTA'IIONl'AClWYnB
tleiIr Mt.ICTemp1e:
We are the ......~4 DOle hll1d8r ud ~ 8llwn CO\. In holl.i_lO the Sun'bow project t:anel1t1y
owned by '1'he BaDcbo cId Sur PaittumlNP. We.. ...._toed abo1lt the bnpll....~ of the
otfs proposed 1woop''lI-.1atioI\ 01 the IDIadin SR-125 lI_rOIlaIIon flldIIly fee.
Our _areasfolloMl:
A. In lJIlIIl!flIl, ul.'OJ\5lr1ICIkmclltla rile 11'4 fIDa\cIIlg becornIB leD 1Jl4le8S ~ it Is
b...v-.bC ~dIIfIailtlo ~ Jotstbat em\. beprloed. to t'r n.... I)<ho""
tlle CDIIIOtIeJnts of the l:Ilfte1\l fOOl" _ok clbzlate. ....AAltIftn of.em sua. u the
5I1bj1d lee by publle apdes COl.IIpCNIlIi this problem IUld bave the undeelrable
genen1em,ctol~ ~ thaebysatlt.f1ln8ne1lher tlwocleve1Dpa' nor the
public asau;y.
B. If public: fauy.o........dta are _&1 lI1\cIl1D other adlOCJ. of fInandIIg l!Jd8ts, IUCh u
appears to be the ."uofIn.t with the propo_lnl:eriI\l SR-125, it Is w~'Oe that the
fees be paid by tile deveIopa'I in p;f.:1ion to the bel\efit tecelwd by tbeIr proJett.
0lberwi8e,. one 4eveIoper WouIIl be dizbl8 8Nlt1urr.
TELECOPY COVEn PAGE
From Telecopier: (818) 0'1-7914
Transmittal Date:
7/d. 7
No. of Pages;
3
(Includinq CGver Page)
TO:
r1-L-vl 4-IL ?-(..>L<<'_<"v----
~~/~
Telecopy No.:
((,If) Lf,,)/ -
, :;.'
,.II" _; u
From;
Cynthia A. Bell
The Vons Cornpanies~ Inc.
Telephone No.;
(818) 821-7050
/ /' I
.s t<.. I';;" 5 -5 ~L -.z:.t.<.-. L.,_.
Re:
.OL
..~-
/'
// ~
C?c.;r
i/
Please:
( ] Review
( ] File
( ] Approve
[ ] Call Me / /.1.
eX] Other:. .J'~. ",.u..(/."'<~7 :;c.(
/J~ /I . ._,if
.~ I C"'~~>C.~/J(.<..c..e~7'
?r ,-
/. UJ/G...c~_
Comments:
/
.----.-.-----.-----
/i// '-~J
the
V(,'i.' 5i';'~(;"
P6.,/l;:~';~ 't;;r~:~
Ti ~.f:': .'\:L'~(.':.
u: !: ". T"'.' i.i~("
;iid.\ ::; t":.;J:(d\
VONS~
Companies, Inc.
July 27, 1993
Mr. John Goss
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Visl3., CA 91910
Re: Proposed Interim SRl25 Fee
Dear Mr. Goss:
We have recently learned that the City st:Jff will be m..Jdng a reCOmrl]eO:"llllon to the City
Council to implement an Interim SRl25 Development In'pact Fee CD.I.P.),
This recommendation includes a reduction in the standard of 25 trips per EDU from 40 trips
per EDU for trip genemtion calculations for any commercially zoned propeny which h~s not
yet pulled a building permit. Under this recommendation an unpermittco commercially zoned
property would pay a reduced Transportation DIP and th~ new Tnte:i m SF 125 DIF.
We believe that the Staff recommend3.tion is not equitable as it concerns the current status of
The Vons Companies, Inc. In fact, we believe Vons IS being penalized for conforming to
previous City requests. It is not equitabh: because Vons has not pulled bUIldmg permIts, but
has paid the Transportation DIF at the old standard of 40 trips per EDU. If the new Interim
SR125 DIF is adopted Vons would be required to pay the new fee ~nd ""!wld have already
overpaid on the pnar Transportation DIF.
In addition, this is contrary to previous City requests to accelerate commercial devel0fllllt;n! w
benefit the City and community. Vons is being penalized for having committed in advance to
the eastern growth area of Chula Vista. The EastLake community will not currently support
our needed stole volumes; however, the needf"A! ll1frastructure is alrC2dy in place. This
infrAStructure has been paid for by the Transportation DIF VOllS has already paid the advance
infrastructure costs but, due to slow residential developrnc:it, V.~n, ;, not in a position where
pulling a building permit is economically justified
The Ilddition of this new Interim SR125 fee will have a negative; impact Ull V;)ns abilitY to
establish a supermarket. This could .potentially r~J1ge from delays in construetior. to complete
re-evaluation of the market area. In all cases there would be delays in providing goods and
services to the EaslI.ake comml.!nily ~.nd delays in the Ctty receivlIig sales t4x revenues from
the Vons store. Approximately 30% of Vans sales will generate sales tax revenue for the City.
~!Il" \' \ J'" i. " ,',I"';
JiA:J;L
~ . (, I""" . - ,
h i ,~; ;'./llt :-I!::nr.:" '.',1 -'tn, \, -'.: '" \ .\
Mr. John Goss
SR125 Fee
July 27, 1993
Page 2
\Ve understand the need for providing transport2tion sy,,,ems; howe'o.er, we objC<"'1 10 paying
more than our fair share.
Your consideration would be greatly appreciated in illodilying the manner of fee generation so
that all commercial properties are treated equally,
Very truly yours,
THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.
/i ., 11'{ ~~
/' . 7-,' . . .~
( V)'....A4 d.. '.' . '---
Cvnthia A. Bell
J
Senior Real Estate Repr.esenl2ltive
CAB/crb
GOSS.CAB
cc: C. Barlow
J. Stewart
G. Peters
/1-)/)r;2)
~~I?
~
'------
~.~~~
----
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
Interim State Route 125
Facility Feasibility Study
Prepared by:
HOWARD NEEDLE.~ lAMMEN & BERGENDOFF ~
ARCHlTEcrs ENGlNEER~ PLANNER~ ~
In Association with:
Wilbur Smith Associates
NBS/Lowry
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
Brown, Diven & Hentschke
May 1993
/ '-I/f - .J.~
Tntt'"rim ~tl=lt/" Ront/" 1?-'\ Fl=Il'i1ity Ppl=Io;:ihility ~hlliy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1 Executive Summary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
1.1 Need for Interim Project .................................... 2
1.2 The Interim Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
1.3 Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
1.4 Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
1.5 Need For Phasing ........................................ 7
1.6 Legal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
1.7 Summary and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
2.0 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
3 Circulation Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Development Phasing .................................... 18
3.3 Traffic Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 Additional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.5 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4 Engineering Considerations .................................... 41
4.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
4.1 Design Criteria .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Physical Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3 Preliminary Environmental Review ........................... 46
4.4 Cost Estimates ......................................... 48
4.5 Interim Recommendations ................................. 54
4.6 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5 Alternative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
5.1 Conceptual Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2 Traffic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
5.3 Phasing Scenarios ....................................... 59
1 !f1-~&
Tntf":rim ~t~tP: ROlltp: 1',\ F~ri1ity FMtcdhility ~hl(iy
6 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.0 Financing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.1 Tax Allocation Bonds .................................... 65
6.2 General Obligation Bonds ................................. 66
6.3 Certificates of Participation ................................ 66
6.4 Special Tax Bond - Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. . . . . . . . . .. 67
6.5 Special Assessment Bonds ................................. 68
6.6 Integrated Financing District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.7 Infrastructure Financing District ............................. 70
6.8 Recommended Funding Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.9 Financing Plan ......................................... 71
6.10 Proposed 125-DIF Fees ................................... 73
7 Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
7.1 Franchise Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
7.2 Taxable Bonds ......................................... 78
7.3 Extended Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8 Technical Appendix .......................................... 79
A Land Use Classification ................................... 80
B Development Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
C Allowable Debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90
D Cash Flow Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95
E Cost Estimates ......................................... 103
9 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
Figure 2.0.1 - Vicinity Map ........................................... 12
Figure 2.0.2 - Project Schedule ......................................... 15
Figure 3.2.1 - Estimated Land Development Phasing Schedule ................... 19
Figure 3.3.1a - Circulation Network Assumptions for Stage 6 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Figure 3.3.1 b - Average Daily Traffic Forecast for Stage 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
Figure 3.3.2a - Circulation Network Assumptions for Mid Range Development. . . . . . .. 33
Figure 3.3.2b - Average Daily Traffic Forecast for Mid Range Development ......... 34
Figure 4.1.1 - Geometric Cross Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43,44
Figure 4.4.1 - Estimated Construction Cost Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Figure 4.5.1 - Construction Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54
Figure 4.5.2 - Recommended Interim Roadway .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
Figure 8.1 - SANDAG Traffic Analysis Zones .............................. 81
11 /7A-~ 7
TntPTim ~tMf': Rontf': 1?.t;j F~("i1ity Fp$l~ihmty ~hl"Y
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Page
Table 1.3. I - Interim SR 125 Estimated Construction Cost ...................... 6
Table 1.5. I - Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Table 1.5.2 - Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Table 1.5.3 - Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Table 3.2.1 - Trip Generation Rates ................................... 20,21
Table 3.3.1a- Stage 6 Daily Traffic Forecast ............................. 25-28
Table 3.3.lb- City of Chula Vista Roadway Capacity Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
Table 3.3.2 - Mid Range Daily Traffic Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35-38
Table 4.4.1 - Interim SR 125 Right-of-Way Cost Estimate ..................... 49
Table 4.4.2 - Interim SR 125 Mainline Capital Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
Table 4.4.3 - At-Grade Intersection Capital Cost Summary ..................... 5 I
Table 4.4.4 - Interim SR 125 Capital Cost Summary ......................... 52
Table 5.3. I - Interim SR 125 Capital Cost Summary - Phase I .................. 60
Table 5.3.2 - Interim SR 125 Capital Cost Summary - Phase 2 .................. 60
Table 5.3.3 - Interim SR 125 Capital Cost Summary - Phase 3 .................. 61
Table 6.10.1 - Minimum 125-DIF Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74
Table 6.10.2 - Adjusted Trip Alternative to Table 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75
Table 8. I - Land Use Trips for the Traffic Study ...................... . . .. 82,83
Table 8.2 - Land Use Trips for the Financing Plan .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84,85
Table 8.3 - Development Schedule .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87-89
Table 8.4 - Allowable Debt .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99-94
Table 8.5 - Cash Flow Analysis .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96-102
Table 8.6 - Mainline Cost Estimates .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104-113
Table 8.7 - At-Grade Intersection Cost Estimates ........................ Il4-Il5
111 /i4~;2.r
Section 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
JJ/f) - ~(
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
In search of feasible transportation solutions for the eastern portion of San Diego County, State
Route 125 (SR 125) has been proposed as an extension of San Diego's outer loop which will
provide access to existing and future development Due to spiraling costs of transportation needs
and limited financial resources, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has looked
for suitable means to meet the transportation requirements through the assistance of private
investment Assembly Bill No. 680 (AB 680) has enabled privatization of transportation facilities
allowing for the construction of toll roads within the State of California. In January of 1991,
Caltrans entered into a Franchise Agreement with a consortium of four companies known as the
California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) permitting the construction of SR 125 as a
tollway. Presently, Caltrans has six possible alignment alternatives under consideration and,
therefor, the alignment utilized throughout this study corresponds with the Chula Vista General
Plan.
The selection of a nine mile segment of SR 125 for a tollway to be constructed by CTV
financing, was originally expected to bring a swift solution to the transportation needs of the Otay
Mesa, Sweetwater Valley, and the Bonita Region. Optimistically, the CTV tollway construction
would be completed in 1997 or 1998. However, the City of Chula Vista wants to provide for
the possibility that there could be delays to the present CTV schedule or even prepare for an
abandonment of the entire tollway project.
1.1 Need for an Interim Project
The proposed corridor runs through a partially developed area in eastern San Diego County (See
the map below reflecting the Chula Vista General Plan route. This route may be modified should
Caltrans select another alternative). At this time, potential development is restrained due to the
lack of proper infrastructure and more particularly, highway access to the area. A traffic model
was prepared specifically for the region that would influence the SR 125 proposed corridor
location.
~ACIFIC OCEA~
.... ..~~ "-l
OROR'~ ~
\\ .
\" \,
\ > \ ~
',y
,
.
~
~
NO S~OI~
_,_""'~;i~~'~~ -,--
-_.~~~~~----~--_._--
2 /y/}~3 0
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Summary
The City of Chula Vista expected, as of January 1, 1990, that a maximum of 9,654 residential
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's), in addition to industrial and commercial improvements, can
be permitted without overburdening the existing and planned roadway network. The City's
Growth Management Plan and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP)
identifies a total of 19,500 EDU's as the maximum development the planned circulation system
can accommodate prior to the construction of roadway improvements either within, or parallel
to, the SR 125 corridor.
A revised version of the City of Chula Vista traffic model was used to generate forecasts of the
travel demands for various stages of development. The City's computer model is a more focused
version of TRANPLAN, which is a modification of the traffic model currently being used by the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). For the purpose of analysis, the model
breaks the region into Traffic Analysis Zones and parameters are established for land use; the
model is then loaded with trip generation rates developed by the City. Other factors are taken
into account such as: the highway network is refined as prescribed by SANDAG, Zone to Zone
paths are identified, trips are distributed - linking origins with destinations, Peak Hourly Factors
are taken into account, and Traffic Assignments are analyzed to produce traffic volumes for each
period within the network. This model is the same as that used for the ECVTPP, however, travel
speeds for this study were coded somewhat differently which has lead to different results. For
instance, the travel speeds for SR 125 and East Orange Avenue were coded at 55 mph and 1-805
was coded at 50 mph in the ECVTPP Traffic Analysis. For the forecast in this study, speeds on
East Orange Avenue and SR 125 were reduced to 45 mph and speeds on 1-805 were increased
to 55 mph. Some distances were coded incorrectly, such as Telegraph Canyon Road and East
H Street, and were corrected for this study. Some differences exist in the roadways included in
each network.
The traffic high end forecast completed for this study found that traffic volumes reach 444,000
trips per day over the entire network within the Eastern Territories. This volume is significantly
higher than the phasing development limit set at 19,500 EDU's (which equates to slightly less
than 200,000 trips per day) and results from total build-out conditions for the Eastern Territories
with the exception of Otay Ranch which only includes the build-out of Villages 1 & 5. It is
believed that a freeway will be open within the corridor by the time this volume is realized and,
therefore, an interim facility will be needed prior to that time and will be further needed should
the toll road project be delayed. For this reason, a mid-range level of development was targeted
for the interim facility recommendation which resulted in a forecast of 352,763 trips per day.
Even though this prediction is less than the 444,000 trips, it is nevertheless substantially higher
than the phasing development limit of 19,500 EDU's.
With the forecasted development and its associated traffic demand, there is a clear need for some
traffic mitigation to be in place at the approximate time of projected completion of the SR 125
tollway. If the tollway is delayed significantly, the proposed facility would best serve the area
in terms of economy, if it can adequately handle the traffic demand as it becomes warranted.
As development occurs in time, the facility should, likewise, evolve. This would involve phasing
of the improvements that would accommodate development without overburdening the region
financially.
3 ) t./ I) -.3 I
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Summary
1.2 Facility
This study analyzes the feasibility of an interim facility partially within the SR 125 Corridor in
conjunction with local street improvements which provides adequate circulation improvements
in the region in the event CTV or Caltrans are delayed in constructing the planned ultimate
facility. Special analysis of traffic requirements, facility capabilities and their construction costs
were analyzed with respect to their financial feasibility and legal aspects. In addition, the
feasibility study analyzed environmental impacts, Right-of-Way restrictions and other sensitive
issues that could result from the construction of the facility.
Originally, an interim SR 125 facility that utilizes as much of the proposed CTV tollway as
possible was studied as a potential interim project. This scenario would provide significant
benefits in satisfying most of the above criteria and construction within the CTV tollway Right-
of-Way would provide an interim facility which would be covered under the environmental
documents prepared for the consummate freeway project. Designing an interim SR 125 facility
that constructs a portion of the ultimate facility reduces "throw-away" construction expenditures
such as demolition of temporary facilities and reconstruction within the same space. Estimated
costs for this project scenario indicated that $63.29 million is required to construct the facility
between and including East Orange Avenue through San Miguel Road. In addition to this, $54
million is currently estimated to build the interchange which will connect SR 125 to SR 54.
Although this concept for an interim facility is ideal for traffic mitigation, the projected costs
make it an infeasible solution.
Artist Rendering of SR 54 / SR 125 Interchange
A second alternative was analyzed utilizing as much of the proposed existing circulation network
as possible which also provides significant benefits in satisfying most of the above criteria while
minimizing construction and Right-of-Way costs. This involves construction and widening of
seven different segments as follows:
. Segment I; Widening of Sweetwater Road from SR 54 to Bonita Road
immediately west of the golf course. Sweetwater is now approximately 44 feet
in width and this study projects an additional 8 feet of roadway will be required.
4 /L/1 ~3~
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Summary
. Segment 2; Widening of Bonita Road from Sweetwater Road to San Miguel Road.
This work will involve reconstruction of the existing bridge over the Sweetwater
River. Presently, the facility is approximately 32 feet in width and the analysis
herein recommends a total width of not less than 52 feet. San Diego County is
presently planning for this work to be done regardless of the outcome of the
interim SR 125 improvements and, therefore, costs for this work have been
eliminated from the fmancing plan for this project.
. Segment 3; Widening of San Miguel Road from Bonita Road to Proctor Valley
Road. San Miguel is approximately 44 feet wide along this stretch and the
recommended improvements would widen the road an additional 8 feet.
. Segment 4; Construction of Proctor Valley Road from San Miguel Road to SR
125. This segment involves building a section of roadway which presently exists
a!> a dirt road. This part of the interim improvements would provide a street 52
feet wide within the existing Right-of-Way.
. Segment 5; This next segment of roadway would be constructed along a
considered alignment for the tollway through the Eastlake and Salt Creek I
subdivisions. In fact, a 52 foot wide section would be constructed here which
could possibly be made a part of the ultimate tollway. If this were to be the case,
expensive throwaway costs would be minimized.
. Segment 6; This segment of the interim facility is an extension of Eastlake
Parkway from the San Diego Gas & Electric easement to the proposed alignment
for Orange Avenue. Unlike the others, this portion would be a four lane roadway
with a natural grass median separating direction of traveL The proposed width for
this section would be 58 feet of roadway and 16 feet of median, totalling 74 feet.
;
""
SEGMENT 2
1I000TARCI
-- !
;
L
! No Scale
SR 125
CORRIDOR
5 J~/J<JJ
Interim State Route 125 . Executive Summary
. Segment 7; The seventh and final segment is the extension of Orange Avenue
from the Sunbow Subdivision eastern boundary to Eastlake Parkway as a four lane
road. The proposed section would be the same as that for Eastlalee Parkway.
Segment 5, as described above, proposes construction within the CTV tollway Right-of-Way
footprint which will require a separate environmental process, however, the technical studies
prepared for the toll road may be used to cover this portion of the interim facility. As in the first
interim scenario, "throw-away" costs incurred by working in the same area twice is minimized.
Furthermore, widening of existing facilities along with associated intersection improvements
serves to enhance the capacity of the existing system and will not be made obsolete when the
ultimate freewayltollway is built.
Reducing "throw-away" construction costs will serve as a key goal for the construction of the
roadway. The strategy is to simply construct a small portion of the ultimate freeway and increase
the capacity of existing streets for use as a facility. The result should produce lower overall costs
and reduced traffic impacts during construction of the ultimate facility.
1.3 Cost
The Interim SR 125 facility recommended in this study, including intersection improvements and
necessary Right-of-Way, is projected to cost approximately $ 27.95 million. Segment 2, Bonita
Road, crosses the Sweetwater River & has been targeted for reconstruction by San Diego County.
For this reason, the estimated costs included in this report for Segment 2 have been omitted.
Costs by segment are as follows:
Table 1.3.1
Interim SR 125 &timated Construction Cost
Segment Cost in millions
Segment I; Sweetwater Road $ 1.040
Segment 2; Bonita Road $ 0.000 (Financed by San Diego County)
Segment 3; San Miguel Road $ 0.990
Segment 4; Proctor Valley Road $ 6.686
Segment 5; SR 125 (Interim) $ 5.253
Segment 6; Eastlake Parkway $ 2.208
Segment 7; East Orange Avenue $10.961
Intersections $ 0.815
TOTAL $ 27.953
An additional source of potential funding, the State - Local Agency Transportation Partnership
Program (SLTPP) could reduce the effective cost of constructing the facilities by ten (10) to
6 /'I/l~31
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Sununary
fifteen (15) percent These funds are matching funds contributed by the State on a project basis,
subject to availability of funds and number of applications.
1.4 Funding
This study has outlined a feasible scenario of funding methods for the City to consider. The goal
is to provide a revenue source that will allow the construction project to proceed in a timely cost
efficient manner.
The City should modify their existing Transportation Development Impact Fee (T-DIF) to provide
funding for the interim 125 Facilities by creating a 125-DIF program. The 125-DIF rates should
be established at a minimum of $143.00 per trip. The 125-DIF rate could be increased to
approximately $180.00 per trip to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis.
If the 125-DIF rate is established at the minimum of $143.00 per trip, then an additional source
of revenue will be required to pay for long-term debt (bonds). The Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act passed in 1982 authorizes the formation of Community Facilities Districts (CFD's)
to provide certain facilities or public services to be funded through elector approved special taxes
securing long-term debt. A CFD is proposed as the mechanism to levy a special tax on property
and issue debt sufficient to provide the capital funds to construct the roadway project. This
method of finance is recommended for these improvements to supplement funds received from
the 125-DIF.
The bonds will be secured by a two-thirds vote in favor of special taxes within the proposed
community facilities district. The special tax is levied according to a special tax formula with
the funds paid to the CFD for the particular debt service. If there are less than twelve registered
voters in the proposed CFD, the land owners vote based upon the acreage owned. If there are
more than twelve registered voters, it is based upon a two-thirds vote of the registered voters.
Because the bonds are based on land secured debt, they're perceived as less secure and will be
more expensive than other financing methods. However, the CFD would be established in
primarily undeveloped areas and a land owner vote based on acreage would be expected. Since
the landowners are in favor of the project and also represent the majority of expected voters
within the CFD, this method would appear to be successful in meeting the financing needs and
flexibility required to complete the project.
1.5 Need for Phasing
An important parameter necessary for the evaluation of roadway phasing is to define the
minimum improvements required to meet demand. A consensus of system requirements, input
from local developers, and engineering analysis lead to the conclusion that two phases were
required with the capability of allowing for a third phase to commence at any time. The
following tables give a summary of projected phasing and associated costs.
7
/ L/1 ~ 3,/~
Interim State Route 125 - Executive Summary
Table 1.5.1
Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing
Pbase 1
Improvement Cost in Millions
Segment 4; Proctor Valley Road $ 6.686
Segment 5; SR 125 (Interim) $ 5.253
Intersections $ 0.457
Total $12.396
Table 1.5.2
Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing
Phase 2
Improvement Cost in Millions
Segment 6; Eastlake Parkway $ 2.208
Segment 7; East Orange Avenue $10.961
Intersections $ 0.173
Total $13.342
Table 1.5.3
Interim SR 125 Construction Phasing
Phase 3
Improvement Cost in Millions
Segment 1; Sweetwater Road $ 1.040
Segment 2; Bonita Road $ 0.000 (Financed by San Diego County)
Segment 3; San Miguel Road $ 0.990
Intersections $ 0.185
Total $ 2.215
8 /LfIJ -:J t
Interim Stale Route 125 - Executive Summary
1.6 Legal
On December 31,1990 Caltrans entered into an exclusive franchise agreement with CTV. Under
Article 111 of the agreement, Caltrans granted CTV "Exclusive Development Rights" with respect
to "Transportation Facilities" located within the franchise zone. Caltrans acknowledges in the
agreement that competing transportation facilities are likely to adversely affect CTV's
development of SR-125 as a toll road; accordingly, Caltrans agreed; 1) to use its best efforts to
influence local agencies to refrain from developing competing transportation facilities, or other
facilities which might reasonably be foreseen to materially affect the revenue of the CTV project;
and 2) to refrain from exercising its discretionary power to initiate, authorize, endorse, construct
or improve a non-Caltrans owned "Competitive Transportation Facility".
The existence of the franchise agreement means that if the City undertakes an Interim SR 125
project which requires the agreement or cooperation of Caltrans and if the project is deemed by
Caltrans and CTV to be competitive (i.e., if the City project has the potential to adversely impact
the revenue to CTV) then the agreement or cooperation of CTV will also be necessary. This
would involve the SR 54/SR 125 Interchange necessary to any interim facility constructed within
the corridor. Also, if part of the City project is to be transferred to Caltrans, because of the
expectation that the project may then be leased to CTV, issues arise regarding the use of public
funds for the benefit of private entities. It is our professional opinion a thorough review of these
and other matters should be completed prior to committing to construction of any segment where
these issues are involved. At this time, however, City Staff is comfortable with the
recommendations outlined in this study prior to completion of further investigation.
1.7 Summary and Recommendations
Interim SR 125 roadway improvements are required to meet the transportation needs of the
region until the proposed CTV tollway or freeway can be constructed. Building a portion of the
ultimate facility in conjunction with existing and new circulation network improvements will
reduce impacts and allow for a swifter development of an interim solution. The recommended
roadway and intersection enhancements can meet those requirements.
The City should create a l25-DIF to assist in the financing of an interim facility. An additional
source of revenue is also required to pay for the long-term debt (bonds). The formation of a
Community Facilities District would provide such an additional revenue source that apportions
the improvement costs to the properties according to the level of benefit received. We
recommend the City should begin the formation of a CFD in the study area that would receive
benefit from the facility. The City should also consider a phased approach to financing and
construction and negotiations should be instituted between Caltrans and CTV to coordinate the
plan and ensure the continued tax-exempt status of any long-term borrowing for the CFD.
9 iL) 1)<3 7
Section 2
BACKGROUND
/ Lj.17 - 3 r
Interim State Route 125 - Back~round
2.0 Background
During the month of January 1991, the State of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), entered into a franchise agreement with a consortium of four companies incorporated
as California Transportation Ventures, Inc., (CTV) for the purpose of providing a Toll Road in
the State Route 125 (SR 125) corridor in San Diego County. The Toll Road segment is a nine
mile unadopted portion of SR 125 considered to be a vital link in the San Diego outer loop. The
Toll Road is presently planned as a four lane controlled access thoroughfare which will evolve
into ten lanes including two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes with provisions for a light
rail facility.
The proposed westerly alignments of SR 125 traverse the eastern area of Chula Vista, as well as
County land, beginning near the international border crossing at Otay Mesa and ending in the
Bonita region, as illustrated in Figure 2.0.1. Easterly alignments undergoing consideration which
avoid the community of Bonita would not adequately serve Chula Vista's transportation needs.
There is a demonstrated need for a permanent facility within the vicinity of the western
alignments and in the event an easterly alignment is selected, sources other than Caltrans will
have to consider construction of the required facility. This area of the City, east of Interstate 805
is referred to as the "Eastern Territories" in the City's General Plan and SR 125 is designed to
meet the demand from development in this region. Presently, several development projects are
expected to be underway within the next five to ten years and it is this development that is
projected to overload the City's circulation system without SR 125. An optimistic construction
scenario would have the tollway completed around 1997 to 1998. Possible construction delays
(or an abandonment) of the tollway project has prompted Chula Vista to look for interim facilities
that can meet the area's transportation needs.
An interim SR 125 solution will require special analysis to determine the financial feasibility of
assessing costs to future developing projects. The City of Chula Vista has initiated the process
by developing this Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study. This study will analyze
traffic patterns, establish engineering criteria specific to the needs of an interim facility, develop
a financing program, examine its legal ramifications, and provide a framework for the City to
make project decisions based on traffic capacity. The City is working in concert with the
developers on the planning and financing of the interim facility and have encouraged developer
participation in the study. The process of developing this study can be summarized in the
following flow chart.
TRAFFIC ClTY CAl TRANS
ANAL Y$IS & & CTV
FORECASTS REVIEW REVIEW
ENCINEERING AL TERNA lIVE LOCAL FEASiBILITY FINAL
CRITERIA & REVIEW & DEVELOPER [VAlUA liON REPORT &.
ASSESSMENTS SELECTION REVIEW RECOMMENDATION
REvENUE LECAL REVIEW
souRCES & ~
FINANCING
PROGRAM lEGISLA liON
11
/f/r3;
Interim State Route 125 - Back~round
EL CAJON
8
SR 725
CORRIDOR
PACIFIC OCEAN
>T~'
REAM FIELD
NAVAL AUXILIARY
AIR STATION
~
BROWN FIELD
~
NO SCALE
5
UNITEP.?J,o.!~~ -'
. - - -MEXICO
C,o.uFO~Nl" . . - - - . .
. - - -eAjA C,o.UFORNI,o.
Figure 2.0. I - Vicinity Map
12
)Jj/)~70
Interim Stale Route 125 - Back~rouud
As noted on the proceeding flow chart, traffic information was assembled from all available
sources and analyzed. The engineering criteria was then established to determine the basis of
design and sizing of an interim facility roughly parallel to the SR 125 corridor. Circulation
requirements were identified, and alternative design solutions were developed and reviewed by
the City and local developers. This feedback provided a phase of selection through iterations of
feasibility analysis matching project needs and costs with available financing. The legalities of
doing construction partially within a corridor that has already been granted an exclusive franchise
was considered during the analysis.
Realizing the complex nature of this study, a project team headed by Howard Needles Tammen
& Bergendoff was retained by the City of Chula Vista to study and prepare this report for a
interim roadway improvements. The team is comprised of:
1. Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff - Prime Engineering Consultant;
2. Wilbur Smith Associates - Traffic Analysis;
3. NBS/Lowry - Assessment Engineering/Costs & Finance;
4. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates - Financing Sources/Alternatives; and
5. Brown, Diven & Hentschke - Legal Review/Analysis.
As discussed, this report will focus on the preliminary traffic analysis and basic engineering
requirements of an interim facility. The traffic analysis and its methodology will be developed
in much more detail in Chapter 3 of this report. It will provide Data Collection and Review,
Corridor Growth Evaluations, Traffic Forecasts, and Corridor (Network) Capacity Analysis. The
Engineering, which will be discussed further in Chapter 4, will concentrate on Data Collection,
Design Criteria, Physical Constraints, Project Scoping and Assessment Engineering. The City
of Chula Vista requested that Special engineering consideration be given to the following three
factors:
1. At-grade versus grade separation of intersections along the interim
roadway within the present corridor,
2. Level of Service (LOS) C threshold with a maximum of LOS D for two
hours at any of the intersections: and
3. North-South versus East-West capacity constraints of the Eastern Chula
Vista Transportation Phasing Plan circulation system.
A major consideration not contained in this report is the status of the SR 125 Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The document is being prepared by Caltrans and its results will have an
impact upon the outcome of the interim roadway and its feasibility.
Since one of the dominant strategies of a feasible interim project lies within the ability of that
project to function in harmony with the ultimate facility as a staged program, it is possible for
any portion of the project planned for construction within the SR 125 corridor to be developed
with the benefit of technical studies prepared for the ultimate project Nevertheless, additional
13 / 11) ~(/
Interim State Route 125 - Back~round
technical studies will be necessary and a separate environmental clearance must be obtained for
this project. A key feasibility characteristic of the interim project is Right-of-Way. It is
important that the construction stay within the boundaries of local circulation elements and that
separate environmental clearance be obtained for work in the existing Right-of-Way for SR 125
outlined in the developing EIR. This will allow the project to be constructed much sooner.
The background material researched for this investigation includes jurisdictional guidelines,
Environmental Impact Reports prepared for private and public development projects,
documentation on the SR 125 Toll Road, financing avenues already being employed for pending
improvements, and projected development schedules. The preliminary schedule to completion
is summarized in Figure 2.0.2. When the status of the EIR changes substantially, this document
will be revised accordingly.
14 /f /} '^ 7:2
"--
~
\
~
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Figure 2.0.2
Traffic Forecasts
I Traffic/Engineering/Mernatives Complete - November 3, 1992
,
Engineering Design
,
,
Financing
Alternatives
Legal Review
~
VI
Feasib@y Evaluation
I Financing/Legal Review/Feasibility
Evaluation Complete - December 7
I
I
I
Final Report
.
.
.
Review of first draft complete April 24, 1992
Review of second draft complete June 30, 1992
Review of third draft complete January 5, 1993
I
February 17,1993
Planning Commision
Presentation
May 18,1993
City Council
Presentation
City Review & Interaction
I
Week Beginning
Month
1 2
2311 I
I 9 I 16 1
November
1992 1993
2s1
II sl IS I 221
February
221 291
31 10 I 171
May
7 I 14 I 21 I 2S
December
4 I II I IS I
January
II
sl IS I
Much
Section 3
CIRCULATION
NETWORK
ANALYSIS
li/l/r1
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
3.0 Introduction
Through comprehensive studies completed by Caltrans and others, construction ofthe State Route
125 roadway has been detennined to be necessary to the mitigation of traffic congestion within
the circulation network of the City of Chula Vista and the southern portions of the City and
County of San Diego. The Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan identifies an
additional 9,654 dwelling units along with associated commercial and industrial acreage as the
maximum development beyond that which existed as of January 1, 1990 that the planned
circulation system can accommodate without an interim SR 125 facility. The intent of
constructing this facility is to reach several overall objectives listed here as follows:
1. Relieve congestion on Interstates 5 and 805;
2. Relieve congestion on the major and prime arteries within the Eastern
Territories of Chula Vista due to proposed private development;
3. Reduce out-of-direction travel; and
4. Provide Right-of-Way for future HOV lanes and light rail transit.
The second objective listed above is the focus of this report to ascertain proper traffic mitigation
should the State's estimated construction schedule be delayed for any reason.
3.1 Methodology
A revised version of the City of Chula Vista traffic model was used to generate forecasts of the
travel demands for various stages of development. The City's model is a focused version of the
TRANPLAN computer model presently used by the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) and the County of San Diego. As accuracy of the model is fundamental to ensuring
meaningful results, a validation analysis was perfonned using the Eastern Chula Vista Traffic
Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) dated January 1991 prepared by Willdan Associates. Traffic forecasts
were generated and the results compared with the results given in the ECVTPP approved projects
plus Rancho Del Rey SPA III (Scenario 2 circulation system).
The eight stages considered by the model during the process of analysis are as follows:
Stage 1, Zone (subsection) Definition; The study area is subdivided into sectors
called traffic analysis zones (TAZ's) in a logical fonnat so that travel demands
can be estimated.
Stage 2, Land Use Data; Proposed land use and projected development
scheduling is entered into the model so that trip generation amounts and types
may be detennined.
Stage 3, Trip Generation; Trip generation rates obtained from completed traffic
studies are used to detennine the number of trips beginning and ending in each
zone.
17
/tf 17- '-/~
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
Stage 4, Highway Network Coding; The highway system is coded consistent
with SANDAG's "Regional Transportation Models" publication. Coded elements
include speed, distance, time, and direction.
Stage 5, Zone to Zone Path Selection; Based upon the highway codes
previously created, paths between zones are determined. This enables the model
to generate zone to zone time and distance matrices.
Stage 6, Trip Distribution; Identifies traffic distribution patterns by linking trip
origination points with termination points.
Stage 7, Peak/Off-peak Time Factoring; Daily trips are separated into peak and
off-peak intervals so that origination and destination tables may be generated for
each period.
Stage 8, Traffic Assignments; Daily trips between the zones are assigned to the
street network for peak and off-peak intervals. Traffic volumes may then be
obtained for each period.
3.2 Development Phasing
To determine the minimum acceptable interim facilities and circulation improvements needed,
a clear understanding of development scheduled to occur within the City's sphere of influence
is criticaL Projected construction schedules by land owners within the study area was amassed
and is graphically illustrated in Figure 3.2.1. The scope of work for this study required an
analysis of probable stages of development in terms of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) which
were determined upon examination of jurisdictional restraints in conjunction with the location and
timing of each project.
This study includes two traffic forecasts:
I. Stage 6 Forecast: This is a traffic forecast for the ultimate build-out conditions for
the Eastern Territories with the exception of Otay Ranch, a 23,000 acre holding,
which only includes build-out of Villages I & 5. Total build-out of Otay Ranch
is not examined here as it is anticipated that the freeway or tollway within the SR
125 corridor will be in place prior to that time. The development level of this
stage is estimated at approximately 444,000 new daily vehicle trips.
18
; '(/1 / Y6,
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
SR 125
CORRIDOR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
'.
\~
\ ....-:--.... .",.-..-....-:
~.. ..--.... .._i
CHULA
VISTA
of/..~""G"-
LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
ClAY RANCH
..-....-
...."..
.'
,.
,......,......
."................
.'
,......-
.'
.........-
,............-
.-....
~ :L-:
LEGEND
~ PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
~ DEVELOPED AREAS
CITY STREET
~ INTERSTATE
4 STATE ROUTE
ST A TE ROUTE 125 CORRIDOR
CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
No Scale
Figure 3.2.1 - Estimated Land Development Phasing Schedule
19
!i/f! ~ Lf 7
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
2.Mid-Range Forecast: This is a traffic forecast for a mid-range land use development that does
not include the full construction of SR-125. Instead this forecast assumes only one segment
within the State Route 125 corridor as part of the interim facility plus some local road
improvements to support a total of approximately 352,000 new daily vehicle trips.
The study area is broken into Traffic Analysis Zones for the purpose of tabulating land use data
and estimating travel activity. Generally, circulation element roads and geographic features (hills,
canyons and river beds) are used to delineate zone boundaries. Figure 8.1 graphically illustrates
the boundaries of the TAZ's within the study area as defined by SANDAG in the creation of
their TRANPLAN computer model.
The land use for this study was obtained from several sources including the City's General
Development Plan, Specific Planning Area Plans, Tentative Maps and Final Maps. Land use has
been estimated for each TAZ in the study area and divided into the following categories:
1. Residential;
2. Industrial;
3. Commercial;
4. Office;
5. Olympic Training
Center (OTC);
6. Golf Courses;
7. Schools;
8. Public;
9. Parks;
10. Medical Center; and
11. Church use.
Trip Generation Rates utilized for each of these land uses were provided by the City of Chula
Vista and are shown below:
Table 3.2.1 - Trip Generation Rates
Per Land Use Designation
Land Use Trip Generation Rate
(Trips per Unit)
Residential - Single Family Detached 10 per Single Family Detached (SFD) Dwelling
Unit, 8 per Single Family Attached (SFA) and 6 per
Multi Family Attached (MFA)
Industrial 200 per Acre
Commercial 500 per Acre
Office 300 per Acre
OTC 33 per Acre
Golf Courses 8 per Acre
Schools 100 per Acre
20 /1/; '16
Interim State Route 125 . Circulation Network Analysis
Table 3.2.1 - Trip Generation Rates
Per Land Use Designation
Land Use Trip Generation Rate
(Trips per Unit)
Public 50 per Acre
Parks 5 per Acre
Medical Center 26 per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church 40 per Acre
The Financing Plans that will be utilized for the funding of improvements uses a lower rate of
250 trips per acre for commercial land use in order to recognize common trips (passerby trips)
and avoid double counting. Also to be conservative, the GTC is shown as 0 trips for the
financial plan. Similarly, churches have been reduced from 40 trips per acre to 0 trips per acre
since they are considered to be primarily local trips.
To better understand the development phasing within the region, land holdings have been grouped
by developer and tabulated with their respective T AZ's as provided in Table 8.1 in the Technical
Appendix, Land Use Classification Section. A summary of these groupings are as follows:
L Rancho Del Rey (RDR)
2. Eastlake
3. Sunbow
4. Olympic Training Center (GTC)
5. Salt Creek I
6. Salt Creek Ranch
7. San Miguel Ranch
8. Gtay Ranch (further divided into Village I and Village 5)
9. Montillo
10. Bonita Meadows
1 L Canyon View
12. Woodcrest Southwestern
13. Ladera Villa
14. Woodcrest Terra Nova
15. BaldwinfT.C.R. Project
All of the TAZ's within each development have been listed and the trips are calculated utilizing
the trip generation rates mentioned above. An itemization of generated trips by T AZ is also
provided in Table 8.1.
21 /i/A ~ If!
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
3.3 Traffic Forecasts
The Work Program for the Interim State Route 125 Toll Facility Consulting Services calls for
the analysis of SR-125 and related facility requirements associated with the projected levels of
land use development in Eastern Chula Vista as described above. The two land use alternatives
(Stage 6 and Mid-Range) for Eastern Chula Vista have been developed and analyzed. The Stage
6 alternative represents the highest level of land use development that will be analyzed during
this study. This development level has resulted in 444,000 daily vehicle trips. The Mid-Range
alternative represents a lower level of land use development estimated at 352,763 daily vehicle
trips.
3.3.1. Stage 6 Forecast:
Figure 3.3.1a graphically illustrates an assumed street system for this level of land use
development and Figure 3.3.1b shows the daily traffic forecast based upon the associated land
uses.
The roadway system assumed for the forecast analysis includes additional roadways necessary
to support the higher level of development in Eastern Chula Vista. More specifically, the
roadway system includes the following roadway additions:
1. The extension of East Orange Avenue eastward to Hunte Parkway;
2. An Interim State Route 125 roadway from the East Orange Avenue
extension to SR-54; as a starting point, at-grade intersections were assumed
at East Orange Avenue, Telegraph Canyon Road, East H Street, and
Proctor Valley Road; overpasses with no direct connections to SR -125
were assumed at East Lake Parkway and San Miguel Road;
3. The extensions of Otay Lakes Road and Paseo Ranchero southward from
Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange Avenue; and
4. The construction of a half-diamond interchange on 1-805 at East Palomar
Street (with ramps to and from the north) and the extension of East
Palomar Street eastward to Otay Lakes Road.
The traffic forecast for the Interim SR 125 facility calls for:
1. Approximately 22,000 vehicles per day at its southern end (in the vicinity
of East Orange Avenue);
2. Approximately 52,000 vehicles per day between Telegraph Canyon Road
and East H Street; and
3. Approximately 72,000 vehicles per day at its northern end (in the vicinity
of SR-54).
22 Ii/) ~51J
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
5WEETW A TER
RESERVOIR
I',
. "
i ...........
""": I
'---'" .
SR 125
CORRIDOR
"-"1
I .
___wo ,
J
I
N HO JANAL
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
\
\.
LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
."r.li.-
01'"
;z
~ ~----~
~~ /
~c /'
Q: ...........-....-....
-'
........,.....
..-....
-'
.'
..-...._..__...._...._ L. -.........
. yo: .....-.....
. r .......
\ t::..:
, ':iJ
OTAY VALLEY AVE
LEGEND
~
'"
~ INTERSTATE
-<2l- 5T A TE ROUTE
_ _ . 5T A TE ROUTE 125 CORRIDOR
CITY STREET
o FULL INTERCHANGE
D PARTIAL INTERCHANGE
__'_n_ CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
No Scale
Figure 3.3.1a - Circulation Network Assumptions for Stage 6
23 / tj /! 57
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
r........
. "
I '.
--~. I
L....: t-:
!
i
,
!
SR 125 1 .----,
CORRIDOR...._.! i
UPPER OT A Y
RESERVOIR
----..-...----..---
'------------
............"........
,...-...
\'[ ~_."
__J
,-
._.._..J
! LOWER OTAY
I RESERVOIR
I
!
,.._..J
,/
../.
.......--"'
..................
\
\
.. ...--. ...-!:...-"--;
-.- .
-'
CHULA
VISTA
109
i'
805
LEGEND
~ INTERSTATE
~ STATE ROUTE
_ _ . ST A TE ROUTE 125 CORRIDOR
o FULL INTERCHANGE
D PARTIAL INTERCHANGE
_______ CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
No Scale
CITY STREET
Figure 3.3.lb - Average Daily Traffic Forecast for Stage 6
24
jLJ-1-f;Z
Interim State Route 125 . Circulation Network Analysis
The highest level of land use development analyzed in the earlier ECVTPP Study (Scenario 4)
generated only 294,000 daily vehicle trips, compared to the 444,000 generated by development
in this study. However, the traffic forecast on SR-125 is lower for this development level than
it was for the ECVTPP Scenario 4 as follows:.
1. The ECVTPP developer phasing year 1995 (Scenario 4) traffic forecast for
the northern end of SR 125 was 108,000 vehicles per day, compared to
72,000 for this study; and
2. The ECVTPP Scenario 4 traffic forecast for East Orange Avenue near I.
805 was 74,000 vehicles per day, compared to 53,000 vehicles per day for
this study.
Table 3.3.1 summarizes the traffic volumes generated by this level of development and compares
them to the Standard Capacity Rates provided by the City of Chula Vista's Traffic Department.
Table 3.3.1a
Stage 6 Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Capacity Stage 6 Daily
Roadway Segment class(sii) (b) Traffic
Interstate 805
Otay Valley 8F 160,000 \09.000
RdlEast Orange
Ave
East Orange 8F 160,000 139,000
Avelfelegraph
Cyn Rd
Telegraph Cyn 8F 160,000 175,000
RdlEast H St
East H StIBonita 8F 160,000 219,000
Rd
Bnnita RdlState 8F 160,000 224,000
Route 54
North of State 8F 160,000 213,000
Route 54
State Route 54
West of j.805 6F 120,000 97,000
I.805/Reo Dr 6F 120,000 106,000
Reo Dr/Woodman 6F 120,000 92,000
Ave
25
/1//5)
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
Table 3.3.1a
Stage 6 Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Capacity Stage 6 Daily
Roadway Segment Class(s)") (b) Traffic
Woodman 6F 120,000 75,000
A veIBriarwood
BriarwoodlState 6F 120,000 77,000
Route 125
East of State 6F 120,000 124,000
Route 125
Interim State
Route 125
-East Orange
A venuel 4E (c) 22.000
Telegrapb Cyn Rd
Telegraph Cyn 4E (c) 52.000
RdlEast H St
East H StlSan 4E (c) 63.000
Miguel Rd
San Miguel 4E (c) 72,000
RdlState Route 54
Bonita Road
East of 1-805 4M 30.000 47,000
West of Willow 4M 30,000 33,000
Street
West of Otay 4M 30,000 39,000
Lakes Rd
East of Otay 4M 30,000 25,000
Lakes Rd
West of Central 4M 30,000 19,000
Avenue
East H Street
East of Paseo 6P 50,000 46.000
Ranchero
West of Otay 6P 50,000 39.000
Lakes Rd
East of Dtay 4M 30,000 28,000
Lakes Rd
West of Corral 4M 30,000 23,000
Canyon Rd
26 F! /J ~S7
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
Table 3.3.1a
Stage 6 Dally Tramc Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Capacity Stage 6 Daily
Roadway Segment Class(sYI) (b) Traffic
East of Corral 4M 30,000 23,000
Canyon Rd
West of State 4M 30,000 23,000
Route 125
East of State 6P 50,000 28,000
Route 125
Telegraph
Canyon Road
East 1-805 6M 40,000 63,000
East of Pasen Del 6P 50,000 47,000
Rey
West of Paseo 6P 50,000 43,000
Ranchero
East of Paseo 6P 50,000 36,000
Ranchero
East of Otay 6P 50,000 34,000
Lakes Road
West of State 6P 50,000 59,000
Route 125
East of State 6P 50,000 63,000
Route 125
West of Eastlake 6P 50,000 44,000
Parkway
East Orange Ave.
East of 1-805 6P 50,000 53,000
East of Medical 6P 50,000 56,000
Center Dr
West of Paseo 6P 50,000 55,000
Ranchero
East of Paseo 6P 50,000 46,000
Ranchero
East of Otay 6P 50,000 48,000
Lakes Rd
West of State 6P 50,000 48,000
Route 125
27
J'-Ih -55
Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network Analysis
Table 3.3.1a
Stage 6 Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Capacity Stage 6 Daily
Roadway Segment Class(s)<.) (b) Traffic
East of State 6P 50,000 32,000
Route 125
East of Eastlake 6P 50,000 29,000
Parkway
Otay Lakes Road
South of Bonita 6P 50,000 22,000
Rd
North of East H 6P 50,000 20,000
Street
North of 6P 50,000 35,000
Telegraph Cyn Rd
North of East 6P 50,000 12,000
Orange Ave
East Palomar
Street
East of 1-805 4M 30,000 30,000
East of Medical 4M 30,000 26,000
Center Dr
East of Paseo 4M 30,000 15,000
Ranchero
Paseo Ranchero
South of 6P 50,000 24,000
Telegraph Cyn Rd
North of East 6P 50,000 16,000
Orange Ave
(a) # = number of lanes; F = Freeway; E = Expressway; P = Prime; M = Major; C
= Collector
(b) Level of Service C capacities are used for all facilities except freeways. for
which Level of Service E capacities are used.
(e) Capacity varies depending on configuration of intersections and interchanges;
more detailed intersection/interchange analysis indicates the facility will operate at
Level of Service C or better throughout.
These differences are significant and appear illogical. However, they can be explained. The
roadway network used to develop the ECVlPP Scenario 4 forecast differed from the roadway
network used to develop this forecast in several ways:
28 / '//) ~ C;Z
TntPrirn ~t~tf': Rontf': 1 '" . rirrnlMinn Nf':twnrk An~ly~i~
1. There are some differences in the roadways included in each network (for
example, the Scenario 4 network does not include the half-diamond
interchange at Palomar on 1-805); however, these differences are relatively
minor and do not significantly contribute to the traffic volume differences
between the two forecasts.
2. The major difference between the two networks, and the real cause of the
differences between the two forecasts, is the travel speeds coded in the two
roadway networks for SR 125, East Orange Avenue and 1-805; in the
ECVTPP Scenario 4 network, SR 125 and East Orange Avenue were
coded with a higher speed (55 mph) than was 1-805 (50 mph); for the
forecast completed herein, travel speeds on East Orange Avenue and SR
125 were reduced to 45 mph and speeds on 1-805 were increased to 55
mph.
Additional analysis performed as a part of this study demonstrated that the higher speeds on East
Orange Avenue and SR 125 did divert a significant amount of through traffic from 1-805 onto
East Orange Avenue and SR 125. This diverted traffic passes through Chula Vista without
stopping. Almost all of the differences in SR 125 and East Orange Avenue traffic volumes
between the ECVTPP's Scenario 4 and this study is the result of diverted through traffic.
The additional analysis also indicated that even more traffic could be diverted if sufficient
capacity were provided on East Orange Avenue and SR 125: the northern portion of SR 125
could attract as much as 130,000 vehicles per day. While the diversion of through traffic may
relieve congestion on 1-805, and while it may be a good target market for a future toll road in
the SR 125 corridor, it is very important to recognize that this diverted traffic is in no way
related to the land use development proposed for Eastern Chula Vista.
For this study, travel speeds on East Orange Avenue and SR 125 were reduced to 45 mph and
speeds on 1-805 were increased to 55 mph to reflect a more realistic forecast The effect of these
changes was to minimize the amount of diverted through traffic on SR 125 and East Orange
Avenue in the traffic foreCast Consequently, the analysis for SR 125 and East Orange Avenue
is much more closely related to proposed land use development in Eastern Chula Vista.
Because a forecast that minimizes diverted through traffic on interim SR 125 and East Orange
Avenue is most closely related to proposed land use developments in Eastern Chula Vista, it is
in many ways very logical that such a forecast be used as the basis for sizing the interim SR 125
facility. Most importantly, the primary purpose for the interim SR 125 facility is to support
additional land use development within Eastern Chula Vista.
Based on Stage 6 forecast, the following facilities would be recommended in the SR-125 and
East Orange Avenue corridors to accommodate foreCast traffic at Level of Service C. (LOS C
represents a minimum operating level of service as described in the City's policy entitled
"Threshold/Standards and Growth Management and Oversight Committee"):
29 ) 'I /! '/~7
Tntpnm ~t~tp Rnlltp 114\ _ f'irrnlMinn Nptwnrk Anl=lly<:.i<:.
1. East Orange Avenue would be constructed as 6-lane Prime Arterial with
at-grade intersections from 1-805 to SR-125; based on HCM signalized
intersection capacity analysis, all major intersections can be configured to
provide Level of Service C; the 1-805/East Orange Avenue interchange
would have to be modified to provide LOS C. (Work along 1-805 is not
included within the financing plan outlined in Section 6, Funding).
2. An interim SR-125 would be configured as a 4-lane Expressway from East
Orange Avenue to SR-54; based on HCM signalized intersection capacity
analysis, grade separated interchanges are necessary at 1) Telegraph
Canyon Road, 2) East H Street, and 3) Eastlake Parkway; at-grade
intersections can be configured to provide Level of Service C at East
Orange Avenue and San Miguel Road (or a new road to be constructed
south of San Miguel Road), but sufficient Right-of-Way should be
acquired to allow eventual grade separations at both locations.
The City's Level of Service Standards used to develop these recommendations are derived from
the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element of the General Plan in conjunction with volume to
capacity ratios and are summarized in the following table:
Table 3.3.1b - City of Chula Vista Roadway Capacity Standards*
Average Daily Vehide Trips
Roadway Level of Service (VlC Ratio)
X -Section
Class (feet) A (.6) B (.7) C (.8) D (.9) E (1.0)
Prime Arterial 104/128 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500
Major Street (6 lanes) 104/128 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
Major Street (4 lanes) 80/104 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500
Class I Collector 74/94 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500
Class II Collector 52/72 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
Class III Collector 40/60 5,600 6,600 7,500 8,400 9,400
. LOS "C" Capacities are from the City of QlUla Vista Circulation Element of the General Plan. Other Levels of Service are
derived by volume to capacity 01/c) ratios. 1his is only a guideline and capacities included in lhis table represent urban
conditions. Rural roadways with little side friction and/or widening at intersections can accommodate much higher volumes
than stated on this table.
Stage 6 Forecast Summary
The Interim SR 125 facility tested under this alternative includes a full-diamond interchange at
Telegraph Canyon Road and a half-diamond interchange (with ramps to and from the north) at
30 /'-//J /5r
Tntmm ~t~tp Rnntp 11<:; _ rirrlll~tinn Nptwnrr An~ly<.::jc;:
Eastlake Parkway. The half-diamond interchange at Eastlake Parkway could be replaced with
an overpass (eliminating access to and from SR 125) but doing so would result in the need for
loop ramps at the Telegraph Canyon Road interchange.
The interim SR l25/East H Street intersection could be configured and constructed as an at-grade
intersection, but as such it would only provide Level of Service D. LOS D is allowed by the
Threshold/Standards policy at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of 2 hours
per day. Consequently, a grade separated interchange is necessary to satisfy the City's Level of
Service C standard. Furthermore, this intersection has already been graded for a grade-separated
interchange.
The roadway network that was analyzed included an overpass at San Miguel Road and an at-
grade intersection at a new road to be constructed slightly south of San Miguel Road (assumed
to be Proctor Valley Road). Constructing the interchange at San Miguel Road and an overpass
for the new road, or eliminating the overpass at either location would not have a significant
impact on the recommendation:
I. There should only be one intersection with SR 125 in this area; eliminating the
nearby overpass would reduce costs; and
2. The analysis indicates that an at-grade intersection can be configured to provide
Level of Service C.
As noted earlier, the roadway network included a new I-805/Palomar Street half-diamond
interchange (with ramps to and from the north). The analysis indicates that this interchange
would significantly reduce congestion at adjacent interchanges and although not a part of this
financing plan, would be a valuable addition to the City's Circulation System.
Due to the magnitude of these circulation elements and their associated costs, the financial study
for Stage 6 indicated this scenario to be a heavy financial burden on the local area. For this
reason, Stage 6 has been determined to be an infeasible solution to traffic congestion at this time.
3.3.2 Mid-Range Forecast:
Figure 3.3.2a graphically illustrates an assumed street system for this level of land use
development and Figure 3.3.2b shows the daily traffic forecast based upon the associated land
uses. Although the available capacity for an increase is smaller than a facility built along the
corridor, it can continue to be a vital asset to the eastern Territories after the toll facility has been
constructed and opened for public access.
The roadway system assumed for the mid-range forecast analysis includes additional roadways
necessary to support the higher level of development in Eastern Chula Vista. More specifically,
the system includes the following roadway additions:
31 /i/1 ~5(
Tntf'rim ~t~tP Rnlltp 1?'l _ riJ'("nl~tinn Nptwork An~lyc;:ic;:
1. The extension of East Orange Avenue from the east DIF Boundary
eastward to Hunte Parkway;
2. An Interim State Route 125 roadway from Eastlake Parkway to Proctor
Valley Road. At-grade intersections were assumed at Eastlake Parkway,
East H Street, and Proctor Valley Road;
3. The extensions of Otay Lakes Road and Paseo Ranchero southward from
Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange Avenue;
4. The construction of a half-diamond interchange on 1-805 at East Palomar
Street (with ramps to and from the north) and the extension of East
Palomar Street eastward to Otay Lakes Road; and
5. The provision of a half-diamond connection from Sweetwater Road and State
Route 54 (to and from the north only).
This network included all the link coding and speed changes that were applied to the Stage 6
Forecast network.
32 IIIl / to
Tntf':'rim StlHP. ROlltp. 17~ _ rirrlll~tinn Np.twork An~lYl;;.il;;.
SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR
...
, ....
i ........
'-....J
-'
SEGMENT 1
SEGMENT 2
SR 125 r----,
CORRIDOR-..-' :
I
i
JANAL
i
I
i UPPER OTAY
: RESERVOIR
I
'.
\
'..
~--. .......--.-.,
'-~" ..-:
,-
,
.---_,,1
I
I
I
1
SEGMENT 8
LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
SEGMENT 7
o?J>,\'~G~
"
'" "
~ ~
o '"
"
'"
'----..-..--._..._..._ L-
'. f- ......~
t 'fnJ
-'
.'
.-
-'
..-..................
,._..J
/
./
-'
-.........
GTAY VALLEY AVE
-..-
LEGEND
""
("
~ INTERSTATE
~ STATE ROUTE
_ _. STATE ROUTE 125 CORRIDOR
CITY STREET
o FULL INTERCHANGE
o PARTIAL INTERCHANGE
_,_____ CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
No Scale
Figure 3.3.2a . Circulation Network AsslllDptions for Mid Range Development
33 )11-1--6)
TntPTim ~t::l,tp Rnlltp: 11" _ l'irrlll::atinn Np:twnrk An::l,ly<:.i<:.
SWEETW A TER
RESERVOIR
h
.,
; '~""'"
.: I
.....-' I
.-'
i
I
.
I
SR 125 i r'-"
CORRIDOR:.....-' !
1
l._
,
I
!
i UPPER OTAY
: RESERVOIR
I
,
\
\
\.. .._~ --".---/
'-..-"'-: :
.-
,-
.
._.._..1
i
I
48
I
_._._J
,/
,/
.....-_.....-.
----
-'
.'
.-
..".
,,-.'
......-.,,--
-'
.'
.-
. J
I
i
50
III
-.--..-...-..-...-... .,
1.._.._..-..-..-..-
\.
LEGEND
-o/INTERSTATE
-&r STATE ROUTE
_ _. STATE ROUTE [25 CORR[DOR
CITY STREET
o FULL INTERCHANGE
o PARTIAL INTERCHANGE
_..____ CITY SPHERE OF [NFLUENCE
No Scale
Figure 3.3.2b - Average Daily Traffic Forecast for Mid Range Development
34 ) if A -~.:J-
Interim ~t::ttp Rnlltp 17" _ rirrlllMion Nptworlr An::tlYl::l<;
The traffic forecast for the Interim SR 125 facility calls for:
1. Approximately 19,000 vehicles per day at its section between Eastlake Parkway and East
H Street; and
2. Approximately 14,000 vehicles per day at its section between East H Street and Proctor
Valley Road.
Table 3.3.2 summarizes the traffic volumes generated by this level of development and compares
them to the Standard Capacity Rates provided by the City of Chula Vista's Traffic Department
and illustrated in Table 3.3.1b earlier.
Table 3.3.2
Mid-Range Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Mid.Range Forecasts
Roadway Segment Class(sl") Capacity'b) Daily Traffic
Interstate 805
Otay Valley RdlEast Orange Ave SF 160,000 111,000
East Orange A ve!Telegraph Cyn Rd SF 160,000 151,000
Telegraph Cyn RdlEast H St SF 160,000 191,000
East H StlBonita Rd SF 160,000 232,000
Bonita RdlState Route 54 SF 160,000 236,000
North of State Route 54 SF 160,000 214,000
State Route 54
West of I.S05 6F 120,000 93,000
I-S05/Reo Dr 6F 120,000 101,000
Reo DrlWoodman Ave 6F 120,000 S6,000
Woodman AveIBriarwood Rd 6F 120,000 67,000
Briarwood RdlSweetwater Rd 6F 120,000 72,000
East of Sweetwater Rd 6F 120,000 S7,000
Interim State Route 125
East Lake PkwylEast H St ClIC (c) 19,000
East H StlSan Miguel Rd ClIC (c) 14,000
Bonita Road
35 / L/ /l - d :>
TntPrim ~tj:ltf> ROllt!'" 1?.t:; _ ('irrl1'~tinn N!'"twnrlc Anj:llycd~
Table 3.3.2
Mid.Range Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Mid-Range Forecasts
Roadway Segment Class(s)") Capacity') Daily Traffic
East of 1-805 4M 30,000 48,000
West of Willow Street 4M 30,000 29,000
West of Olay Lakes Rd 4M 30,000 36,000
East of Olay Lakes Rd 4M 30,000 30,000
West of Central Ave 4M 30,000 22,000
East of Central Ave 4M 30,000 16,000
North of San Miguel Road 4M 30,000 22,000
East H Street
East of 1-805 8P 67,000 70,000
East of Hidden ViSla Dr 6P 50,000 54,000
West of Paseo Ranchero 6P 50,000 47,000
West of Olay Lakes Rd 6P 50,000 35,000
East of Olay Lakes Rd 4M 30,000 25,000
West of Corral Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 20,000
East of Corral Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 21,000
West of Slale Route 125 4M 30,000 16,000
East of Slale Route 125 6P 50,000 14,000
Telegraph Canyon Road
East 1-805 6M 40,000 60,000
East of Pasco Del Rey 6P 50,000 42,000
West of Paseo Ranchero 6P 50,000 36,000
East of Pasco Ranchero 6P 50,000 36,000
East of Olay Lakes Road 6P 50,000 42,000
West of Eastlake Parkway 6P 50,000 39,000
East of Eastlake PaJkway 6P 50,000 9,000
East Orange A venue
East of 1-805 6P 50,000 52,000
36
11/ /Ljp Li
/, /7 (
Tntf>rim ~t~t!'> Rout!'> 1''\ _ ('irf'lIht1on N!'>twnrlr An~ly<:.i<:.
Table 3.3.2
Mid-Range Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Mid- Rmlge Forecasts
Roadway Segment Class(s)(') Capacity') Daily Traffic
East of Medical Center Drive 6P 50,000 50,000
West of Paseo Rmlchero 6P 50,000 46,000
East of Paseo Rmlchero 6P 50,000 39,000
East of Otay Lakes Rd 6P 50,000 38,000
West of East Lake Parkway 6P 50,000 38,000
East of East Lake Parkway 6P 50,000 27,000
Olay Lakes Road
South of Bonita Rd 6P 50,000 24,000
North of East H Street 6P 50,000 23,000
North of Telegraph Cyn Rd 6P 50,000 33,000
North of East Orange Ave 6P 50,000 12,000
East Palomar Street
East of 1-805 4M 30,000 30,000
East of Medical Center Drive 4M 30,000 25,000
East of Paseo Rmlchero 4M 30,000 14,000
Paseo Ranchero
South of East H St 4C 22,000 19,000
South of Telegraph Cyn Rd 6P 50,000 20,000
North of East Orange Ave 6P 50,000 15,000
San Miguel Road
East of Bonita Rd CIC 22,000 24,000
Sweetwater Road
North of Central Ave 4C 22,000 15,000
East of Bonita Rd 4C 22,000 22,000
South of State Route 54 4C 22,000 23,000
Paradise Valley Road
East of Meadowbrook Drive 4C 22,000 21,000
37
J '-I /J -~--~
Tnfmm ~f~fp Ronfp 17'=\ _ rirrlll~finn Npfwor1c An~ly<:.ic;:.
Table 3.3.2
Mid-Range Daily Traffic Forecast
Lanes &
Functional Standard Mid-Range Forecasts
Roadway Segment Class(s)(') CapacitY'b) Daily Traffic
East of Worthington St 6M 40,000 24,000
Briarwood Road
North of Sweetwater Road 4C 22,000 21,000
North of SR 54 4C 22,000 17,000
Eastlake Parkway
North of East Orange Ave 4M 30,000 13,000
South of Telegraph Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 33,000
North of Telegraph Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 30,000
East of SR 125 4M 30,000 22,000
Hunte Parkway
North of East Orange Ave 4M 30,000 21,000
South of Telegraph Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 12,000
North of Telegraph Canyon Rd 4M 30,000 9,000
(a) # = number of lanes; F = Freeway; E = Expressway; P = Prime; M = Major; C = Collector
(b) Level of Service C capacities are used for all facilities except freeways, for which Level of Service E capacities
are used.
(c) Capacity varies depending on configuration of intersections and access control; more detailed
intersection/interchange analysis indicates the facility will operate at LOS C or better throughout
Mid-Range Forecast Summary
The Interim SR 125 corridor tested under this alternative recommends the following new facilities
or improvements to existing facilities:
1. Widen Sweetwater Road from SR-54 to Bonita Road;
2. Widen Bonita Road from Sweetwater Road to San Miguel Road;
3. Widen San Miguel Road from Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road;
4. Construct Proctor Valley Road from San Miguel Road to SR 125;
5. Construct SR 125 from Proctor Valley Road to East lake Parkway;
38
/7/1 -i {;
Tntpnm ~t~tp ROlltP: 1?.l\ ~ rirrlllMion Nptworlc An~lyf.:.i~
6. Extend and Construct East Lake parkway from SDG&E easement to East Orange
A venue; and;
7. Extend and Construct East Orange Avenue from East DIF boundary to East Lake
Parkway.
The roadway network also included a new 1-805/Palomar Street half-diamond interchange (with
ramps to and from the north). The analysis indicates that this interchange would significantly
reduce congestion at adjacent interchanges and although not a part of this financing plan, would
be a valuable addition to the City's Circulation System.
3.4 Additional Analyses
Additional analysis were also performed to better understand the function and importance of the
proposed East Orange Avenue extension. These analyses include:
1. Defining the origins and destinations of trips using the East Orange A venue
extension under the traffic forecasts associated with the development level
analyzed herein;
2. The development of a modified forecast which assumed a much lower level of
development in the Olay Ranch, and the assignment of this modified forecast to
networks with and without the East Orange Avenue extension.
These analysis indicated that the East Orange Avenue extension is a critical and necessary
component of the future Eastern Chula Vista circulation system. It serves traffic with origins and
destinations throughout the Eastern Territories. This facility would be required even with a lower
level of assumed development in the Olay Ranch.
A select link analysis was performed to define the origins and destinations of trip utilizing the
seven sections recommended for improvement or new construction under the Mid-Range forecast.
This analysis showed that the benefits from these recommended improvements are widespread
and not limited to zones within the new corridor limits.
3.5 Summary
The recommended Interim SR 125 facility includes a grade separated interchange at Sweetwater
Road and SR 54. At this time, construction and costs for this improvement are projected to be
provided by Caltrans during the improvements now taking place along the State Route. This
would leave minor improvements to the on/off ramp intersections during the widening of
Segment 1. A full listing of the recommended interim facility is as follows:
1. Widening of Sweetwater Road by 8 feet from SR 54 to Bonita Road. This would
also include modifications as necessary to existing utilities. Existing Right-of-
39
JLj/J /&, 7
IntPrim ~t~tP Rnntp 1?~ _ ritT'111Minn Nptwnrk An~ly<:;il;.
Way for this stretch of roadway appears to be adequate to accommodate the
additional roadway width.
2. Reconstruction of the Bonita Road bridge over the Sweetwater River coupled with
widening of the roadway from Sweetwater Road to San Miguel Road.
3. Widening of San Miguel Road by 8 feet from Bonita Road to Proctor Valley
Road. Like the Sweetwater roadway improvements, this segment would also
involve modifications to existing utilities.
4. The construction of Proctor Valley Road within the existing Right-of-Way from
San Miguel Road to the proposed alignment of the interim SR 125 roadway
segment.
5. Construction of a 52 foot wide section SR 125 within the proposed corridor form
Eastlake Parkway to Proctor Valley Road. This segment will not be totally
comprised of a portion of the proposed Tollway as a slight realignment of the
roadway within the Right-of-Way corridor is required to allow for the connection
at Proctor Valley Road.
6. Extension of Eastlake Parkway from the SDG&E easement southbound to the
proposed East Orange Avenue Extension. The connection between Eastlake & SR
125 for this interim scenario would be an at-grade intersection. When the State
facility is built, this intersection may be converted to a grade separated interchange
or a separated crossing allowing no access. This is a function of the toll facility
design and should be further addressed at the appropriate time.
7. Extension of East Orange Avenue from the east DIF boundary to the Eastlake
Parkway extension. Work would include an roadway at-grade intersection where
the two roadway segments join.
The following chapters will further review the geometric sections, construction cost estimates,
and associated financing opportunities.
40 J Z;/J~t Y
Section 4
ENGINEERING
CONSIDERATIONS
/11--j; ~
TnfPnm ~f!=ltp Routt": 1?.t:; _ Fnginf":f":nng: rnn~irlf":'rnrinn~
4.0 Introduction
No portion of SR 125 extending south from SR 54 has been established although Right-of-Way
has been reserved based on the study by Rick Engineering for the ultimate build-out scenario.
Approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the territory surrounding this segment has yet to
be developed and plans for construction by the large land holders are presently underway. The
alignment for the segment extending between San Miguel Road and State Route 54 is still
undergoing studies of six possible alignment alternatives by Caltrans including at least one
eastern alignment. Each of the alignments were explored by the project team for the purpose of
determining the least environmental impact, however, the extent of impact and subsequent
mitigation of issues are still largely unknown. While this report discusses impacts relating to the
ultimate facility, the primary focus is on the recommended interim facility.
To ensure proper planning and design of an interim facility for State Route 125, investigation into
factors impacting the surrounding vicinity must be completed. Geometric cross section,
constraints to the Right-of-Way required to accommodate required width, terrain characteristics,
corporeal constraints, environmental impacts, and funding sources are significant issues which
will be addressed.
4.1 Design Criteria
Through extensive analysis and coordination with City Staff and local land owners, an interim
facility which utilizes much of the existing circulation network was decided upon as the most
feasible and appropriate improvements to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Through well
planned design and construction phasing, the interim facility can serve the region for many years
and assist in the stage construction of the ultimate freeway while holding throwaway costs to
a minimum.
Geometric Configuration
Figure 4.1.1 graphically represents the geometric sections for each segment of the interim facility
and indicates the relationship of the new work with what already exists where appropriate:
42 JL!Il-?O
IntMim ~tMf" Rontf" 1?.c; _ Fnginppring C'nnfi;.iitp.rntinnfi;.
Figure 4. L 1 - Geometric Cross Sections
EXISTING ROADWAY = 32 FT. 20 FT.
8 FT. , 12FT 12FT 12FT ,
I I TRAP I
LANE
PROPOSED ROADWAY = 52 FT.
[==============
12 FT. THROUGH LANES: 2
12 Fr. TRAP LANES: 1
SHOULDER WIDTH: 8 Fr.
LENGTH OF WIDENING: 0.26 MIlES
LEGEND
EXISTING ROADWAY C:===::I
NEW CONSTRUCTION
BONITA ROAD
NOT TO SCALE
I: 8FT. T
PROPOSED ROADWAY = 52 FT.
12FT 12FT, 12FT '\' 8FT. :\
' I' I I' PASSING . -
LANE'
12 fT. THROUGH LANES: 2
12 fT. PASSING LANES: 1
SHOULDER 'WIDTH: 8 FT.
LENGTH OF ROADWAY: 2.OQ MILES OF PROcrOR vALLEY RD.
154 MILES OF INTERIM SR 125
. Passing Lane is used at steep grades as needed. The third
lane can also be used as a trap lane.
PROCTOR VALLEY RD.,
INTERIM SR 125,
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED ROADWAY = 74 FT.
I~
5 FT. I
~I'
12 FT I
~I'
12FT
I 16 FT
.1' .,'
ll,boll:<a'iiF ~c
11I_ Tit:
12FT
, I,
I
12FT t 5F<\
12 IT. tHROUGH LANES: 4
SHOULDER WIDTH: 5 FT.
LENGTH OF ROADWA Y: 3.:!." MILES OF ORANGE AVE.
.64 MILES OF EASnAKE
EAST LAKE PKWY & EAST ORANGE AVENUE
NOT TO SCALE
43
11;9-7/
IntP:rim ~t::tte: Route: 11'\ _ Fnginf':f':ring ron~irle:rntion'"
PROPOSED ROADWAY = 52 FT.
EXISTING ROADWAY = 44 FT. 8 FT.
8FT. 12FT 12FT. 12FT I
r I ~~~ I I
c==================
12 FT. THROUGH LANES: 2
12 FT. TRAP LANES: 1
SHOULDER WIDTH: 8 FT.
LENGTH OF WIDENING: 1.25 MILES OF SWEETWATER RD.
0.90 MILES OF SAN MIGUEL RD.
SWEETWATER RD. & SAN MIGUEL RD.
NOT TO SCALE
Safetv and Operational Guidelines
To ensure that appropriate public safety standards are maintained, City and County design
guidelines should be followed along with Caltrans Highway Design Manual for that portion of
the facility to be constructed within the State Right-of-Way. This basic policy will address
vertical and horizontal sight distances, installation requirements for Metal Beam Safety Rail, and
the proximity of cut/fill slopes in relation to the shoulder edges.
4.2 Physical Constraints
Soil Conditions
The proposed expressway crosses rolling terrain comprised primarily of thin layers of Pleistocene
marine and marine terrace deposits, poorly consolidated weathered marine and nonmarine rocks,
and underlying granite. Stratigraphy in the region ranges from Jurassic meta-volcanics to Recent
alluvium. However, most of the proposed alignment is underlain by sedimentation from the
Eocene and Miocene age. Soft, erodible bedrock forms the rolling hills and smaller ravines while
hard bedrock form high, steep canyon walls. The Interim SR 125 alignment also crosses
Sweetwater River, a large ephemeral stream, at Bonita Road, south of SR 54. In essence, the
valley floors are comprised of alluvium and terrace deposits form the flood plains. Aggregate
resource regions located throughout the Otay and Sweetwater Valleys are thought to contain
suitable construction material which may possibly be utilized for this project.
Elevations ranging from approximately 250 to 650 feet above mean sea level are realized along
the corridor. Deep crevasse incisions within and perpendicular to the principal canyons suggest
that Quaternary formations are easily eroded. In addition, debris flow deposits have been
identified in the region south of Sweetwater Reservoir and are comprised of fine grained silty
sands, sandy clays, cobbles, and rock fragments from the Otay Formation. Some of these flows
have been estimated at over fIfty feet in depth in scattered areas. Slope instability is thought to
be the most significant problem in developing this project. Where cuts are required in unstable
44 /14-72
Tntf"'rim ~tMP. Rnllt~ 1?" _ FnoinP:f>:ring rnn~iIiPrnnnn~
areas, slope stability may require mitigation such as reducing the slope ratio to less than 2: I or
removal of the slide mass altogether. Furthermore, cut slopes in the Gtay formation may become
unstable in time where bentonite beds are undercut. Generally speaking, slope instability should
not occur if fill is properly compacted on natural ground that has been stripped of clayey topsoil
and properly benched.
Right-of-Wav Restrictions
Preliminary estimates prepared by Caltrans of the land required for Right-of-Way to construct
the ultimate facility through the final stage totals seven hundred and twenty nine (729) acres.
The Technical Proposal prepared by CTV for the ultimate toll road estimates that of this amount,
approximately four hundred and twenty eight (428) acres will be dedicated by three land
development companies and the balance purchased in fee simple. The ultimate State Route 125
Right-of-Way alignment is thought to encroach onto approximately twenty six improved
residential parcels and pass through an estimated thirty acres of wetlands which, it is anticipated,
will be supplanted elsewhere. Further information concerning these matters is yet forthcoming
as the State continues in the preparation of necessary environmental studies along the corridor.
Preliminary analysis of the land required for the Interim facility reveals that sufficient Right-of-
Way exists for much of the improvements and can be easily obtained where more land is
required. In order to secure necessary property not already dedicated for public transportation
use, fee credits may be considered in place of purchasing the additional Right-of-Way. It has
also been assumed that land will be dedicated by local developers, in turn, minimizing overall
Right-of-Way costs.
Through preliminary investigations, alignment restrictions due to the presence of hazardous waste
is not envisioned as the Right-of-Way is proposed in a region largely removed from developed
areas. To ensure a consistent hazardous waste management program nationwide, the Federal
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act was enacted. Under this program, identification of waste
materials and the proposed means of their disposal are closely monitored. Permits are required
for the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Should waste
material be encountered, it would probably be from undocumented dumping or mining practices
and mitigation in conformance with jurisdictional regulations would be mandatory.
Seismic Potential
The four closest active fault zones in the region are the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Elsinore, and
San Miguel faults. In addition to these active faults are the potentially active LaNacion and Rose
Canyon fault zones. An active fault is defined as one which demonstrates historic seismicity (the
displacement of Holocene which is less than approximately 11,000 years old). Potentially active
faults do not present this historic record and instead Pleistocene deposits have been displaced
which can range from 2,000,000 to 11,000 years old.
The Geotechnical Report prepared as part of the EIR presently underway indicates the project
area lies within a zone which could experience credible accelerations of OAg in bedrock from a
45
)7/9-7)
Tntt'rim ~t::ttt' Routt' 1?l:ii _ Fnginp.p.ring rnno;:irl~tinno;:
Maximum Credible Earthquake. According to the Geotechnical Report referred to above, "a
maximum credible earthquake on the closest segment of the Rose Canyon Fault would produce
bedrock accelerations of 48% of gravity at the north end" of the interim SR 125 alignment.
Repeatable High Ground Accelerations, important to the design of structures, are estimated to be
approximately 65% of this acceleration. Should a credible earthquake occur in the nearby
segments of the Rose Canyon or LaNacion faults, small rock slides at sloped areas and minor
cracking of the roadway pavement may occur. Liquefaction and more serious damage than these
listed are considered to be insignificant.
4.3 Preliminary Environmental Review
State Route 125 proposed alignment will pass through regions of widely varying species of
wildlife. The area surrounding most of the central portion of the corridor is past agricultural
areas although natural, sensitive habitats are present. The Upper and Lower Otay Lakes
Reservoirs are situated toward the central region, approximately three miles east of State Route
125 and adjacent to Otay Lakes Road. Preliminary investigation reveals most of the biologically
sensitive areas occur to the north and south ends of the corridor. The major land use surrounding
the southern stretch of proposed highway is rolling hills along with the Otay Mesa. The northern
region of the corridor incorporates the Sweetwater Reservoir, Sweetwater Regional County Park,
Sweetwater River, and Bonita Golf Club. Presently, Caltrans is preparing the necessary
Environmental Impact Report for the planned expressway. Technical studies from this effort may
also satisfy many of the environmental study requirements for an interim roadway. Separate
environmental clearance, however, must be obtained for this project.
Air Oualitv
The climate of the region is semi - arid (wet winters - dry summers) with even, moderate
temperatures. The closest weather monitoring station is the Chula Vista station, located in the
Sweetwater region northwest of the proposed corridor western alignments. The mean temperature
for Chula Vista is recorded as 600F with the mean minimum and mean maximum temperatures
being 530F and 67"F respectively. Due to the terrain surrounding the corridor and its proximity
to the Pacific Ocean, the area is well ventilated by land and sea breezes. A local buildup of air
pollutants, however, does develop, most frequently during the early morning hours of July,
August, and September and is caused by two types of temperature inversions (subsidence and
radiation) which are created by a semi-permanent high pressure cell located over the ocean.
With the projected rise in regional vehicular traffic volumes, it is reasonable to expect an increase
in airborne emissions. Measurements of existing air quality taken at the Chula Vista air
monitoring station during 1989 revealed the area is exceeding state and federal standards in
ozone, total suspended particulates, and particle size. The State's Clean Air Act of 1988
establishes clean air standards and requires an "Air Quality Plan" be formulated for regions that
are in violation of said standards. The plan must include control measures which will meet the
set criteria and maintain pollution levels within the established limits. A partial list of
transportation system measures designed to reduce motor vehicle pollution along with indirect
46
Ii/? -7/
Tntf'nm St~tP: ROHtf': 1?.l\ _ FnO';nf'P:nng rnn<;:.k'~tinn<;:.
regulations aimed at reducing emissions from indirect and area wide sources which attract traffic
are as follows:
1. The addition of high occupancy vehicle bypass ramps and lanes;
2. Improving transit service;
3. Require the best design to reduce vehicle trips and travel times; and
4. The balance of land use to reduce trip lengths.
Preliminary estimates of the impacts on total regional air pollution levels by improvements within
the SR 125 corridor reveal a reduction in the generation of airborne pollutants which is an overall
benefit to the San Diego Air Basin. The reason for this is a reduction in congestion on Interstate
805 and other circulation elements which in turn yields a corresponding reduction in trip lengths
and times (measures 2 & 3) and the inclusion of HOV lanes in the finished design (measure 1).
Noise Impacts
Airborne sound is a result of small fluctuations of instantaneous air pressure just above and
below barometric pressure and is characterized by frequency (pitch); intensity (loudness); and
spectral distribution of energy (quality). Noise is a conglomeration of several frequencies at
different levels of intensity and is measured and expressed in decibels (dB). Because of the
decreased sensitivity of human hearing at low and high frequencies (around 20 and 20,000 cycles
of vibration per second), a weighting system has been established to quantify environmental
sounds more closely to the mid-range frequencies. This is called the "A" weighting system and
the decibel level is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA).
The Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19.68.010 is an adoption of the National Goals for
Noise Reduction established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for noise regulatory
criteria. A 65 dBA maximum noise exposure level has been adopted for residential land use and
the State of California has set the maximum noise exposure level for schools, parks, and
commercial developments at 70 dBA.
Established residential neighborhoods in the Bonita area as well as in the vicinity, and to the
north of, East H Street are considered to be sensitive areas as they have been constructed without
solicitude of a future expressway. The Eastlake development to the south of Bonita has, in
contrast, provided for an expressway through developing subdivisions. The proposed SR 125
alignment passes through both residential and industrial regions, and while the noise level in the
residential area will most probably require mitigation, industrial complexes are fairly immune to
highway noise. Sweetwater park is also a sensitive receptor to noise impacts and results of noise
studies should be provided in the State Route 125 EIR to ensure proper noise mitigation designs.
The following represents a partial list of factors to be considered when the significance of noise
levels and subsequent mitigation designs are to be determined:
1. Topographical features of the surrounding region,
2. The existence of natural screening materials,
47 Ji/)/ 7-~
Tntf"rim ~t~tP ROHtf' 1?.c:; _ Fn~inpp.ring rnn~ir1Prntinnc;:
3. The sensitivity of the receptor and its distance from the expressway, and
4. The volume of traffic at specific hours of the day.
Noise barriers such as walls and earth berms may be constructed where conditions allow to help
assuage freeway noise, and improvements to off-corridor structures in the form of insulation and
screened mechanical equipment may serve to reduce overall noise levels.
4.4 Cost Estimates
General
Estimated costs for construction of the interim SR 125 facility and its associated Right-of-Way
requirements have been assessed using the unit costs provided in the California Transportation
Ventures Technical Proposal along with recent construction costs for construction of local
roadways recently built and industry standard construction values, all adjusted to reflect 1992
dollars. Aggregate costs provided in the following tables are separated into the various
components which the interim facility will be comprised. At-grade intersections and roadway
segments are divided separately to more easily allow estimated costs to be determined for phasing
analysis. Using the tables in association with a projected phasing plan (similar to the example
given in Section 5, Alternative Analysis), the total costs as well as a cost per mile can easily be
obtained. Itemized construction cost estimates for the interim facility mainline and at-grade
intersections are given in the Technical Appendix, Part E - Cost Estimates. It should also be
noted here that Segment 2, Bonita Road improvements over the Sweetwater River, are planned
by San Diego County at the present time. Therefore, this segment of Interim SR 125 has been
omitted from the estimated costs.
Right-of-Wav Costs
Right-of-Way costs have been divided into the requirements for each individual segment of
roadway including that which is necessary for the at-grade intersections. The amount of Right-
of-Way required to accommodate the proposed improvements was obtained through a comparison
of what is required against what already exists. It has been assumed that slope easements may
be utilized due to the terrain characteristics in lieu of purchasing land beyond that required to
accommodate the interim facility. Slope easements are typically not used for this type of project,
however, in light of the estimated Right-of-Way expenditures, the use of easements in this way
remains a viable alternative to the purchase of land. Furthermore, fee credits may be considered
for vacant land held by local developers in place of purchasing Right-of-Way to accommodate
the proposed improvements.
The expenditures reflected in Table 4.4.1 are specific for each roadway segment. Appraised land
values were obtained through various sources on much of the vacant land in the vicinity of the
corridor, however, an estimate had to be made on holdings where appraisals were not available.
Where this occurred, land values were assumed to be $50,000 per acre. In keeping with the CTV
Technical Proposal, acquisition costs of $14,000 per parcel, relocation costs of $2,250 per parcel,
and demolition costs of $5,000 per parcel were employed.
48 /ij/j ~ /b
TntPrim ~t:::atP: Rnlltp 1"~ _ Fn~inpp:ring ('nn<:.ir1~tinn<:.
Table 4.4.1
Interim SR 125 Right-or-Way
Cost Estimate
Description Seg. l' Seg. 2' Seg. 3' Seg.4' Seg. 5' Seg. 6' Seg. 7'
Vacant Land $0 $0 $0 $365,000 $190,000 $0 $0
Residential Land $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Along San Miguel
Road
Appraisals $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $5,000 $0 $0
Closing Costs $0 $0 $0 $400 $1,900 $0 $0
Acquisition Costs $0 $0 $0 $36,000 $18,000 $0 $0
Relocation Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Relocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Assistance
Contingeucy (15%) $0 $0 $0 $60,585 $32.235 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $464,485 $247,135 $0 $0
Mainline Costs
The mainline construction cost estimate was prepared for the interim facility described in section
3 utilizing the sections as shown in Figure 4.1.1. Earthwork quantities were ascertained with the
use of known construction quantities for new facilities in the region and preliminary widening
designs.
There is a relatively small amount of impact to eXlstmg utilities along the proposed
improvements. For instance, segments one and three may involve relocation of above ground
power and telephone lines. There will also be some impact on water and sewer along the first
three segments.
A summary of various costs including construction and Right-of-Way are shown by roadway
segment in the table below. In order to account for construction mobilization, a 10% cost
adjustment has been added to the total estimate along with a 15% contingency, both of which are
fairly standard for the industry.
49
/u ~'77
Tntf'rim ~t~tP. Rnntp. 1'.1\ . Pnfinf"f':ring C'nn.;;.iciPrntinn.;;.
Table 4.4.2
Interim SR 125 Mainline
Capital Cost Summary
Description Seg. 1* Seg.Z" Seg. 3" Seg.4" Seg. 5* Seg. 6" Seg. 7"
Project $18,242 $0 $17,364 $109,150 $87,826 $38,735 $192,306
Support (2%)
Design (6%) $54,727 $0 $52,093 $327,449 $263,479 $116,206 $576,917
Construction
Inspection $54,727 $0 $52,093 $327,449 $263,479 $116,206 $576,917
(6%)
Right-of-Way $0 $0 $0 $464,485 $247.135 $0 $0
Construction $912,113 $0 $868,213 $5,457,475 $4,391,315 $1,936,767 $9,615,281
Total $1,039,809 $0 $989,763 $6,686,008 $5,253,234 $2,207,914 $10,961,421
Round to $1,040,000 $0 $990,000 $6,686,000 $5,253,000 $2,208,000 $10,962,000
$1,000
Intersection Costs
Estimated construction costs for the various at-grade intersections include reconstruction of
existing street approaches to the interim facility which accounts for the necessary changes in
grade. Earthwork, asphalt pavement, and adjustments to traffic signals are also included in the
estimates. Table 4.4.3 is a summary of costs associated with each individual intersection.
50
J,//l- ),>5'
IntPrim ~tatp. Rnntp. 1?t;j _ Fnginf>f>ring rnm:1rt~tinn~
$2,370 $3,694 $3,694 $7,538
N/A N/A N/A N/A
$39,500 $61,563 $61,563 $125,625
$45,030 $70,182 $70,182 $143,214
$45,000 $70,000 $70,000 $143,000
ProctorlSR 125 SR 125/Eastlake EastlakelOrange
$2,869 $2,633 $3,031
$8,606 $7,899 $9,094
$8,606 $7,899 $9,094
N/A N/A N/A
$143,438 $131,656 $151,563
$163,519 $150,087 $172,782
$164,000 $150,000 $173,000
Table 4,4.3
At-Grade Intersection
Capital Cost Sununary
Description
SR 54!
Sweetwater
Sweetwater!
Bonita
Bonita!
San Miguel
Project Support (2%)
$790
$1,231
$1,231
Design (16%)
$2,370
$3,694
$3,694
Construction
Inspection (6%)
Right-of-Way
Construction
Total
Round to $1000
Description
Project Management
Design
Construction
Management
Right-of-Way
Construction
Total
Round to $1,000
Cost Summary
San MigueV
Proctor
$2,513
$7,538
A summary of the total estimated cost for constructing the full interim facility as described in
section 3.4 earlier in the report is given in Table 4.4.4 below. Figure 4.4.1 on the next page
graphically illustrates a summary of estimated costs for each component of which Interim State
Route 125 may be comprised.
51
/'1/1 ~?(
Description
Project Support (2%)
Design (6%)
Construction Inspection (6%)
Right-of-Way
Construction
Total
Round to 1,000
Tntffim ~tatp Rnntp 11" _ Fng1nppring ron<:.iitf"rntinn<:.
Table 4.4.4
Interim SR 125* & East Orange Ave.
Capital Cost Summary
Seg.I-7
Intersections
$463,623
$1,390,871
$1.390.871
$711,620
$23,181,164
$27,138,149
$27,138,000
* Full build-out of the interim SR 125 facility and East Orange Avenue
$14,298
$42,895
$42,895
$714,908
$814,996
$815,000
$27,953,145
$27,953,000
52
;L//j-:YO
Tntf>rim ~t::.tf> Rnlltf> 1?" _ Fn~inf>f'rinf l'nn.;;.inf>rntinn.;;.
Grade Seperated
Interchange
SR 5~
Sweetwater Rd
At - Grode
Intersection 2
At - Grade
Intersection
Son Miguel Rd
At - Grade
Intersection
Proctor
Volley Rd
At - Grode
Intersection
SR 125
At - Grode
Inter-section
East Lake Pkwy 6
At - Grode
Intersection
East Orange Ave
Figure 4.4.1 - Interim SR 125
Estimated Construction Cost Summary
Interim SR 125
de S
Estimate ost ummarv
Roadway I At-Grade I Grade Sep. i
I Intersections I I
Segment i Intercham!es Total
$45,000 i J
I I
$1,040,000 I
i
i
$70,000 I N/A
$0
$70,000 N/A
$990,000
,
i
$143,000 I N/A I
, I
$6,686,000 i I
i
I
, ,
$164,000 N/A ,
--J
I
I
$5,253,000 i i
I
J ,
I
--------,
I $150,000 N/A ,
I I
I .
$2,208,000 I
, J
I $173,000 N/A I
I
i
I
!
$ 10,961,000
,
I
1------.. --- $27~953,OOO
Total SR 125 Estimated Cost
7
53
/1/J -%/
IntPrim ~t:::Jtp. Rnlltp 1?~ _ Fnoinpf"ring rnn<:ifipr.:at1nn<:
4.5 Interim Recommendations
One of the strategies in developing a feasible interim project is to phase construction in a manner
that meets the local need while not creating excessive costs. By following this procedure for the
interim facility, the environmental documents prepared for the toll road may also be employed
for any interim segment which is constructed within the planned Right-of-Way. Furthermore,
construction costs and the time required to provide necessary improvements would be held to a
minimum. The following bar graph, Figure 4.5.1, provides a summary of how a program can
be structured. The 220,000 trips includes the original 195,000 trips plus 25,000 additional trips
identified during the study process.
Figure 4.5.1 - Example of Construction Phasing
Phase Three
352,000
Phase Two
Roadway
Widening
i
i
I - Segmenl J
I _ Segmenl 2
i-segment 3
I - Intersection
! Improvements
NETWORK
CAPACITY
(TRIPS)
! New Construction
Phase One i
I _ Segment 6
Segment 7
New Construction Intersection
Improvements
Segment 4
Segment 5
Intersection
Improvements
195,000
Approved
Plans
YEARS
Figure 4.5.2, the recommendation as described in section 3.5 earlier in this study, represents the
full build out condition for an interim facility for the State Route 125 corridor. Its connection
with State Route 54 is a temporary, grade separated interchange which will be constructed by
Caltrans during the freeway improvements.
54 ) i/J /Y.:L
Grade Seperoted
Interchange
SR 54
Sweetwater Rd
At - Grade
Intersection 2
At - Grade
Intersection
San Mlguel Rd 3
At - Grade
Intersection
Practor 4
Valley Rd
At - Grode
Intersection
SR 125 5
At - Grade
Intersection
East Lake Pkwy 6
At - Grade
Intersection \
East Orange Ave 7
IntPrim "t~tf": Ronlf> 1?.c:; _ Fn2"inf>f"ring rnnc;:itll""rntinnc;:
Figure 4.5.2 - Recommended Interim Roadway
Segment I Intersection I I
I
Width Tvoe ADT I LOS
I I
2 Lanes ! i 21,000
i I
Intersection C
2 Lanes I
i Intersection C
,
,
2 Lanes 18,000
Intersection C
,
2 Lanes 15,000 i
Intersection C
I ,
,
,
2 Lanes I 15,000 :
,
,
I
Intersection 1 C
I I
4 Lanes I 10,000 I
I I
Intersection C
,
4 Lanes 36,000
,
I ,
I
55
/lil /63
Tntpnm S:tMf': ROHtf': 1,,, _ Fn~inpp:ring rnno;;irlf'1"~tinno;;
4.6 Summary
Presently, Caltrans is in the process of preparing the Environmental Documents mandated by law
for a facility of this nature. This same document can be utilized for segment 5 of the interim
facility providing its alignment does not transcend beyond the Right-of-Way limits established
for the consummate facility until it ties in to the existing Right-of-Way for segments 4 & 6.
Once the EIR is complete, impacts on surrounding habitat will be known, required mitigation
measures will be outlined, and fiscal impacts can be assessed.
56
/ LIIl-~Y
Section 5
ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS
li;1 -ff5
IntPrim ~t::ttt" Routt" 1'" _ A1tt"rn~tivp. An~ly~;~
5.0 Introduction
Projected development thought to occur within the next ten years and the impact of subsequent
traffic volumes assessed in Section 3, Circulation Network Analysis, are an important part in the
process to determine the proper interim facility for the SR 125 corridor. Relative costs for
construction of the facility weighed against available funds are also a key component in this
program. The need for a roadway in this region has already been demonstrated and alternative
financing sources will be discussed in the next section of this report. Although each of these
subject matters are important, conceptual designs, traffic operations, phasing possibilities, and
schedule forecasts are also an integral part of this process and will be discussed in this section.
5.1 Conceptual Designs
Utilizing the design criteria established in section 4.1, an interim facility could be constructed so
that it is truly an "interim" roadway to the planned ultimate highway. As the name implies, an
interim facility would serve as a provisional facility until such time as the thoroughfare can be
buill The ideal situation would involve a roadway which could easily become part of the ten
lane toll road and as such, design requirements should be held to the same restrictions as the final
SR 125 facility. As ideal as this may be, it is financially too expensive. Improvements to the
existing and planned circulation network, however, can accomplish the same objective as a
portion of the tollway while dropping construction costs substantially. The off-corridor
improvements are not capable of carrying the volume of the Stage 6 alternative but the region
can be adequately served and the improvements will not for the most part be replaced when the
State Route is completed.
Figure 4.1.1 has already addressed roadway sections which would meet the traffic requirements
of the City of Chula Vista. When various segments are built remains within the phasing plan
as accepted and approved by the appropriate agencies. Methods of minimizing unnecessary costs
associated with construction phasing are best managed during the preliminary design phase and
when it is determined various elements will be needed. Initial construction expenditures will be
more closely matched to available capital and since introductory funds will take time to
accumulate, expenditures for design and Right-of-Way will be required first and available funds
for construction will come second.
In conclusion, construction scenarios that provide as much of the ultimate facility without a large
amount of "throwaway" costs is the most economical and efficient manner in which to provide
the requisite facility. Furthermore, proper standards of traffic operations should also be provided.
5.2 Traffic Operations
The ultimate project considered inside the proposed Right-of-Way will be a ten lane tollway
which will provide the traffic operations and safety enhancements of a freeway with a full
freeway to freeway interchange at SR 54, and service interchanges at East "H" Street, East Lake
Parkway, and Telegraph Canyon Road. This will provide adequate highway access to the
developing area well into the future.
58
JL-I-/I ;<t&
IntM"im StMP. Routt'" 1'::; _ A1tp.m~tivp. An~ly<:i<:
The interim facility is intended to satisfy traffic needs until such time as the freeway is
constructed and enhance the circulation network after SR 125 has been built. The traffic
operations will therefore gradually evolve and change as staging of SR 125 and the interim
facilities proceed.
For the purposes of this feasibility study, the traffic operations considered will focus on
guidelines that will have to be further pursued in the final design phase of the project. For
further clarification, see the exhibits in section 5.3.
As the interim facility develops, required traffic operations can be further analyzed and designs
for signalization and traffic control can be completed. Once SR 125 is under construction,
construction staging and phasing will be coordinated to ensure smooth traffic flow through
construction areas. Most of the interim improvements are removed from the SR 125 corridor,
however, construction interference with traffic operations can be expected at the following
locations:
1. Sweetwater Road and SR 54: Once SR 125 is open, this interchange may become
an interference to traffic operations at the interchange between the two freeways.
This would mean that the on and off ramps would have to be eliminated and
driving habits would be disrupted.
2. San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road: The projected alignment for SR 125
is close to the proximity of this intersection. Once construction starts on SR 125
in this region, careful coordination and construction staging will have to be carried
out to ensure disruption to traffic operations are held to a minimum.
3. Segment 5, Interim SR 125: This segment will be affected most since the
proposal is to build the roadway within the SR 125 corridor. Construction staging
and detouring will become crucial to maintain required traffic volumes when SR
125 is being built.
5.3 Phasing Scenarios
The traffic forecast analysis results given in Section 3.3 indicates that the interim SR 125 should
be a facility comprised of improvements to the existing network along with new roadways.
Although the recommended facility is required for traffic mitigation, regional growth will be one
of the driving forces in ascertaining when improvements need to be provided. As the level of
development studied in this analysis is projected to occur over the next several years, the entire
Interim SR 125 improvements are not as yet required. Therefore, phasing of the facilities is the
most economically efficient manner of construction.
One strategy in developing this type of project is to phase the construction similar to the example
given in section 4.5. The following discussion and related cost estimates is a reflection of the
phasing scenario shown in Figure 4.5.1. Development throughout the region will be one of the
driving forces in ascertaining the phasing of the interim SR 125 and further traffic analysis may
59
/1//1 ~Y7
Tntt"rim ~t~tt" Routt" 11" _ A1tf"m~tivt" An~lyc;:;ic;:;
be required to more accurately assess what specific improvements should be as the project
evolves.
For this recommendation, Phase one includes Proctor Valley Road, interim SR 125, and at-grade
intersections at each end of the two segments. This would provide roadway access from Eastlake
Parkway in the south to SR 54. Phase two includes the extension of Eastlake Parkway and east
Orange Avenue with an at-grade intersection between the segments. Once Phase two has been
completed, the interim facility will be in place and require only widening of the northern roadway
segments. Phase three includes this widening work and can be started whenever needed to
accommodate traffic.
Table 5.3.1
Interim SR 125
Capital Cost Summary - Phase 1
Description Segments Intersections Total
Segment 4: Proctor Valley Rd. $6,686,000 - $6,686,000
Segment 5: Interim SR 125 $5,253,000 - $5,253,000
San Miguel Rd./Proctor Valley - $143,000 $143,000
Proctor Valley Rd.l
Interim SR 125 - $164,000 $164,000
SR 125/EastIake Parkway $150,000 $150,000
Total $11,939,000 $457,000 $12,396,000
The relative costs for the second and third phases are reflected in the following two tables. As
was stated earlier, precise scenarios are not yet known and as such, these costs only follow the
example given in previous discussions.
Table 5.3,2
Interim SR 125
Capital Cost Summary. Phase 2
Description Segments Intersections Total
Segment 6: Eastlake Parkway $2,208,000 - $2,208,000
Segment 7: East Orange Ave $10,961,000 - $10,961,000
East Orange A ve/EastIake Pkwy $173,000 $173,000
Total $13,169,000 $173,000 $13,342,000
60 ) if/} -?fY
TntP1"im ~t~t". Rout". 1?~ _ Altf>m~tivp. An~lyc;;is.
Table 5.3.3
Interim SR 125
Capital Cost Summary. Phase 3
Description Segments Intersections Total
Segment 1: Sweetwater Rd. $1,040,000 - $1,040,000
Segment 2: Bonita Rd. $0 - $0
Segment 3: San Miguel Rd. $990,000 $990,000
SR 54/Sweetwater Rd. $45,000 $45,000
Sweetwater Rd./Bonita Rd. $70,000 $70,000
Bonita RdJSan Miguel Rd. $70,000 $70,000
Total $2,030,000 $185,000 $2,215,000
The following pages aid in the understanding of the interaction between the projected freeway
and the local circulation network.
61
) ilJ / 'if!
TntPrim St::\tP: Rnntf': 1?~ _ Altprn::.t;vf': An::\ly".ic;:
San Miguel Road
Ultimate 10 Lane SR 125
Interchange (As Proposed
by CTV)
East "H" Street
Ultimate 10 Lane SR 125
Interchange (As Proposed
by crV)
East Lake Parkway
Ultimate 10 Lane SR 125
Interchange (As Proposed
by CTV)
62
/11/ ~/O
Tntpnm StMP. Rnlltf': 11-" _ A1tpm~tivf': An:'lly~i~
Telegraph Canyon
Road
Ultimate 10 Lane SR 125
Interchange (As Proposed
by CTV)
East Orange Avenue
Ultimate 10 Lane SR 125
Interchange (As Proposed
by CTV)
63
/f;1-7/
)ilL} /!~
Section 6
FUNDING
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
6.0 Financing Options
The availability of grants for the project was explored. In the current political climate, there are
very few available funds which have not already been committed. In addition, the Caltrans
policy has been to preclude the use of grants or additional funding for projects which are to be
privately financed as a franchise operated private venture.
Based on the previous analysis, it may be necessary to issue debt to complete the interim facility
in a timely manner. At this point, two factors pertaining to the issuance of debt should be
considered, namely; 1) the type of financing mechanism to be used; and 2) the source of
repayment
In determining which financing mechanism is best suited to complete the interim facility, the
major concerns of the City should be the identification of a secure revenue source to build the
interim facility if required. The financing mechanism selected must provide a secure revenue
source that, to the largest degree possible, assures the timely repayment of debt and is both
politically feasible and equitable. Therefore, the security for the debt must be a steady, reliable
revenue stream. The financing mechanism must also have the capability to be implemented in
a timely and cost-effective manner. The financing vehicle must be sensitive to alternative
construction schedules, project planning, and other timing factors. The recommended financing
type must also be a low cost method of finance widely recognized in the credit market. A brief
description of the primary methods of debt fmancing available to the City follows:
6.1 Tax Allocation Bonds
The City may seek to establish a new project area in its eXlstmg Redevelopment Agency
("RDA") to issue bonds and fund the interim facility. Redevelopment Agencies are provided by
California law to assist public agencies in the reduction of "blight" within specified project areas.
RDA's in conjunction with the powers and authorities of the City are allowed to use a variety
of financing techniques, including, but not limited to, community or City funds, tax increment
financing, special assessment districts, Industrial Development Financing Act, Non-Profit
Corporation, Parking Authority, Sales and Use Tax Increment Financing, Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District, Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds, and a variety of developer and Federal
funding assistance programs.
Under a Redevelopment Agency concept, the tax base is frozen for the entire project area or a
smaller portion with certain minor exceptions. As the value of the redeveloped property increases
the property taxes will increase proportionally. That portion of property tax above the frozen
base is known as tax increment and may be utilized by the redevelopment agency for debt service
expenditures or to repay bonds that may be used for infrastructure improvements. An agreement
between the City and any overlapping tax jurisdictions (i.e. the County) as to how the tax
increment would be apportioned would also have to be reached. The increment collected could
then be used to reduce the assessments levied on the parcels within the District.
65
Jv/ij-13
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
The City could utilize future tax increment funds to assist in the financing of the freeway
improvements. The City could then enter into a agreement with the RDA to fund a portion of
the improvements for the project area. The City would then be reimbursed by the RDA from tax
increment revenues.
If the City wishes to pursue this revenue source, it would need to determine whether the area is
"blighted" within the current legal definition. A projected revenue stream would also be
identified as part of this analysis.
There are two obstacles that make an RDA unfeasible at this time; I) The area does not appear
to be "blighted" according to the current legal definition; and 2) the formation of the RDA
would require revenue sharing agreements of the tax increment with any overlapping jurisdiction
with ad valorem taxing authority and the cooperation of the County does not appear likely.
Therefore, this option does not appear viable at this time.
6.2. General Obligation Bonds
The City could fund the freeway improvements through the pledge of the full faith and credit of
the City. Under this method, the City would need to obtain a 2/3 approval margin from a City-
wide vote to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds. All residential and commercial
property within the City would receive an annual levy based upon their property values. Because
the constituency benefiting from these improvements represent only a portion of the City and the
requirement for a 2/3 approval margin, makes the likelihood of a successful election remote.
This revenue source does not appear to be a viable option.
6.3 Certificates of Participation
Certificate financing is based on the same theory as non-profit corporation financing, i.e.,
providing long-term financing through a long-term lease or installment sale arrangement.
Certificates represent a proportionate interest of the holders to receive a portion of each payment
made by the public agency under the installment sale agreement or lease between the public
agency and third party.
The issuance of COP's by the City is one possible method of providing for the financing of the
interim facility. To issue COP's the City would need to identify a secure, long-term existing
revenue stream that would be available to retire the debt. The City would be required to make
a General Fund pledge to act as security or pledge another steady revenue source such as tax
increment proceeds. The use of the General Fund to finance the project would require substantial
increases in available revenues or a significant re-prioritization in funding City programs.
Therefore, it may not be equitable to encumber the General Fund as security for those
improvements.
Since the interim facility would normally be funded by Caltrans, it may not be equitable to
encumber the General Fund as security for these improvements.
66
) if/! )'1
Interim State Route 125 - Fundin~
Since the interim facility improvements may not be considered adequate security by the credit
markets, the City may also be required to pledge one of its existing facilities as collateral.
COP issues are typically rated on a credit rating lower than on issuers' general obligation debt
because caP's are not backed by the issuers' "full faith and credit." COP issues usually require
a reserve fund equal to ten (10) percent of the issue size increasing the size of the borrowing.
The default of the Richmond School District on its COP's and the resulting litigation surrounding
the use of caP's have resulted in the deteriorating appetite in the credit markets for this
fmancing mechanism. Until this litigation is resolved, an additional increase in borrowing costs
can be expected.
The process of issuing COP's is relatively straightforward and can be accomplished fairly
quickly. It should be remembered that no election is required to issue COP's and (pending
resolution of the current court case), given acceptable levels of cash flow, security, and debt
coverage the market readily accepts caP's. As there does not appear to be an available revenue
stream to pledge as security for the certificates, nor a desire to reprioritize other programs to fund
the facilities, this option is not recommended.
6.4 Special Tax Bond - Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
On January 2,1983, the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" became effective. This
statute authorizes formation of community facilities districts to provide certain facilities or public
services financed through elector-approved special taxes securing long-term debt.
"Facilities" include the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of property having
useful life of five years or longer, including, but not limited to:
a. Local park, recreation, or parkway facilities;
b. Elementary and secondary school sites and structures;
c. Libraries;
d. Childcare facilities;
e. Any other governmental facilities the legislative body is authorized to construct,
own or operate;
f. Natural gas pipeline facilities, telephone lines, and facilities for the transmission
or distribution of electrical energy to provide access to customers who do not have
access to those services.
The Community Facilities District (CFD) authorizes the levy of an annual tax which may be used
to fund facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis or to pay debt service.
67
) i/l- 'J5'"
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
"Services" are defined as additional services performed by employees to provide police
protection, fire protection and suppression services, recreation program services, library services
and operation and maintenance of parks, parkways and open spaces, and flood and storm
protection.
The question of the special tax levy needs to be submitted to the qualified electors not less than
ninety (90) days, but not more than one hundred eighty (180) days following the close of the
public protest hearing. If fewer than twelve (12) registered voters reside within the proposed
CFD, the vote is by the landowners voting with one vote per acre or portion thereof. If more
than 12 registered voters reside within the CFD, a 2/3 vote is necessary for any special tax levy,
as well as for the issuance of long-term debt. If long-term bonded indebtedness is required, a
resolution and public hearing is also required on the necessity to incur the debt.
The bonds are secured by the voted special taxes within the community facilities district, and this
special tax is levied according to a special tax formula with the funds paid to the community
facilities district for the particular (CFD) debt service.
It should be noted that well structured special tax bond offerings have been so well accepted by
the municipal markets that interest rates and underwriting costs of special tax bonds and
assessment bonds are now approximately equal. While most assessment bonds and special tax
bonds are issued without a rating due to the fact that these types of securities are usually sold
to fund capital projects needed in advance of development, the criteria for rating and insuring
both types of indebtedness are the same.
Total debt service on a Mello-Roos financing is comparable to that of Special Assessment debt
and are higher than the debt service for a COP issue. Therefore, Mello-Roos fmancing are
generally more expensive than either general obligation or COP debt. The added expense is due
to several reasons. The primary reason is that land-secured debt is perceived as being less secure
than a "full faith and credit" obligation debt. Mello-Roos financing also require a reserve fund
which is usually about ten percent of the total issue size.
Since the CFD would be established within undeveloped areas, a vote by the landowners would
be necessary to have the measure approved and bonds sold. Because of the strong desire of the
landowners to see the area develop, we believe that any vote held would be successful.
Therefore, this option appears to meet the financing needs and flexibility required to complete
the project.
6.5 Special Assessment Bonds
A common method of financing capital improvements is to use the proceeds of bonds issued
pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915.
Under this approach, an Assessment District (AD) is formed and the land to be benefitted by the
improvement is assessed to pay the costs and expenses of the improvements. AD proceedings
do not require a vote of the electorate; however, they are subject to a 50% majority protest. In
certain instances, such as health or safety issues, the City Council is authorized to override a
68
JLj/;/70
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
maJonty protest. The concept of an AD is to have the property owners pay their appropriate
share of "specific benefits". They are traditionally used in areas where certain facilities benefit
only a small portion of City residents.
In order to establish an Assessment District for the project area, an allocation of the benefit
received by each property owner would need to be undertaken. The entire amount of the
proportionate share would be allocated to each property owner. Property owners would have the
opportunity to pay the entire assessment in cash within thirty (30) days or allow the assessment
to go to bond which would then result in a lien against their property. The annual payments for
repayment of Assessment District bonds is made through the property tax bill which is an
additional charge above and beyond property taxes. The cost of financing the improvement
would be incurred only by those properties receiving a specific benefit from the construction.
The major obstacle in using an Assessment District to finance the interim facility lies in the
apportionment of specific benefit. Areas outside of the City's boundaries that would benefit from
the construction would not be included in the District. The assessment of benefit representing
the areas outside of the City boundaries would leave a funding gap on the project financing.
Additionally, the benefit assessment would be based on the benefit accruing to the property
according to the current zoning and land use. This methodology is relatively inflexible towards
future changes in the land use. Given the lack of development within the study area and the
significant changes in land-use that may occur, the City should seek a financing mechanism that
would allow for greater adjustments during the transitional period of the study area.
6,6 Integrated Financing District
In 1986, the State legislature passed the Integrated Financing District Act (California Government
Code - Section 53175). An Integrated Financing District ("IFD") represents a relatively new tool
for financing growth similar to Assessment Districts, in that the IFD process assesses the cost
of improvements in proportion to the benefit received. However, the properties are assessed if
and when development occurs. These "contingent" assessments are levied when a triggering
event occurs (i.e. submitting a building permit, title change, or land use change).
The major advantage of an IFD approach is that properties are assessed only after they benefit
from the improvement. The contingent assessment is levied when the IFD is formed. If the
property does not develop the assessment is never levied. One problem in setting the assessment
at the formation of the IFD is the inaccuracy of predicting the ultimate land use of the property.
Should the land use change after the contingent assessment has been levied, a reassessment based
upon the actual land use may occur when the trigger point is reached.
The boundary of the IFD should include all currently undeveloped parcels that receive benefit
from the improvements. It should be noted that any properties where a contingent assessment
has been levied would also receive a credit for the DIF fee attributable to the interim 125 facility,
hereafter called the 125-DIF. The use of an IFD in conjunction with an AD or CFD may provide
69
/LjA / ~7
Interim State Route 125 - FundinR
the City with a mechanism to assess properties that benefit from the project as they are annexed
in the future.
6.7 Infrastructure Financing District
One of the newest financing techniques, the Infrastructure Financing District, took effect on
January I, 1991, with the passage of SB 308. Similar to a Redevelopment Agency financing,
this mechanism would allow the City to pledge some of the growth in the ad valorem tax
revenues generated from development within the District.
This mechanism may be used to finance the interim facility as described in the study. However,
at this time, there are serious questions on the legality of SB 308. The consensus among the
legal community is that the mechanism is not constitutional and would be vulnerable to legal
challenge. Should the City wish to proceed with this financing vehicle, planning should allow
for additional time because of the legal requirements. We therefore, do not recommend the use
of this financing tool until the legal questions have been resolved.
6.8 Recommended Funding Plan
As with most improvement projects, the City of Chula Vista is facing the difficult task of
balancing the need for the construction of an interim road facility against limited financial
resources. To assist the City with these decisions, we have developed the following concept plan
to facilitate the financing of the interim roadway facility (the "project"). This should allow for
the construction to proceed in a timely and cost-efficient manner. As proposed, the plan requires
several financial, legal and engineering issues to be resolved before it can be finalized and
implemented.
The current conceptual approach to the funding of the interim facilities is to utilize the number
of trips generated by each type of land use (residential, commercial, etc...) at ultimate build-out
and apportion the pro-rata share of those trips to each parcel of land for its fair share of the
facilities. A pay-as-you-go type fee (l25-DIF) combined with a Community Facilities District
(CFD) is proposed which will provide the funding mechanism to levy a special tax on property
owners and issue debt sufficient to provide the capital funds to construct the project. Since the
-rate of build-out is unknown, certain assumptions must be made for the phasing of the project
to coincide with the expected build-out. The expected phase one will cost approximately $12.4
million.
The interim facility is a back-up or contingency plan for the CTV toll road. The City's interest
is to assure the ability to fund the interim facility with the hope that it will not be necessary. If
the interim facility is built, the financing mechanism should be flexible and allow for a transition
to the SR 125 facility.
One of the difficult legal issues is how to utilize tax-exempt financing for the City's portion of
the facilities and preserve the tax-exempt status of any debt issued if the facilities are eventually
leased to a private company such as CTV. One option is to have CTV purchase any publicly
70
) ~/i-J ' ~?f
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
financed improvements that they utilize in their toll road. This would save crv money by
constructing and acquiring an interim facility financed with lower interest cost from a CFD.
Another option is for the City to continue to own the improvements at all times and lease it to
Caltrans, a state agency. Upon the completion of the crv improvements, the percent ownership
between the City and the state would be calculated by a formula which divides the City's cost
by the total costs. If the toll road was never built, the property owner would pay for the
improvements that are needed as a result of their respective developments. If it was built they
would receive an appropriate credit for their contribution.
In order for the program to function properly, the l25-DIF must be created to reflect the most
current costs of the interim roadway facility. All developments beyond a certain size must be
required to join the CFD as a condition of development, any annexations to the City must be
required to participate in the program. The outstanding balance of the special tax levy would be
paid prior to the transfer of the property from developer to the property owner (Le. such as the
close of escrow). This will avoid levying the special tax on individual property owners. Smaller
developments must be conditioned to pay the 125-DIF fee. Based upon this concept, we would
come to the conclusions and recommendations presented in Section 6.10.
6.9 Financing Plan
Section 3.2 of this report explained the generation of 352,763 trips expected by the projected
development level. Table 8.1 in the Land Use Classification section of the Technical Appendix
provides the detail of how these trips were calculated. This information, current as of January
1, 1990, was utilized for design purposes to estimate the required improvements to accommodate
this increase in trips.
For financial planning, it is necessary to refine these number of trips to a level that can be
utilized in a special tax formula for the Community Facilities District. In this regard, Table 8.2
in the Land Use Classification section of the Technical Appendix provides a calculation of those
trips that may be utilized in such a special tax formula. Table 8.2 updates the information from
Table 8.1 by deducting those units which have obtained a building permit and have paid the (T-
DIF). The table further subdivides the residential category into Single-Family Detached (SFD),
Single-Family Attached (SFA) and Multi-Family Attached (MFA). It also lowers the trip
generation rates for commercial, OTC and church in order to recognize common trips and avoid
"double counting". It eliminates the trips per acre for schools, public and parks since these land
uses cannot be taxed. The acreage and square feet of development for Medical Center has been
reduced due to a development agreement for the first and second phases of construction for
Kaiser, which includes 775,000 square feet out of a total 1,350,000 square feet. Therefore
575,000 square feet of development on approximately 12.2 acres remain in a later phase which
will be considered to have a traffic generation rate of 650 trips per acre according to the
development agreement. Likewise the acreage upon which a special tax would apply has been
reduced proportionately. Furthermore, the acreage for commercial development in the Rancho
Del Rey project has been reduced due to a development agreement for the Power Center. At the
bottom of this table is shown the average density for the three residential categories of SFD, SFA
71
)1-1// - (?
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
and MFA. These average densities will be utilized further in Table 8.3 to reduce the amount of
vacant acres as development occurs. It should be noted that the particular mix of projects and
their level of development intensity have not been approved by the City in this form. Rather,
it is the total of 252,564 total trips with respect to a particular interim facility development need
that is paramount. The actual trip mix and what projects are included, at what level, in what time
frame is yet to be resolved.
Table 8.3 in the Development Schedule section of the Technical Appendix, shows an estimated
development schedule for residential at 1,300 units per year, broken down into 693 units SFD,
390 units SFA and 217 units MFA. The remaining land uses were estimated over a 19 year span.
This table should be further reviewed and verified by the City, property owners and an
Absorption Consultant to determine it's accuracy.
Table 8.4 in the Allowable Debt section of the Technical Appendix, is an attempt to show the
market value of the land uses from Table 8.3 by utilizing approximate "Developed Values" and
"Vacant Land Values" that are shown in the heading of this table. A previous appraisal for the
Olympic Training Center (OTC) of $46,800 dollars per acre was utilized. The Developed Values
and Vacant Values should be further refined by an appraiser to increase the accuracy of this
table. The column entitled "Total Allowable Lien @ 3.5: I" considers a value to lien ratio of 3.5
to 1. The City Council's policy is to utilize a 3 to I ratio; however, a more conservative ratio
of 3.5 to I has been utilized in this table. The column entitled "Outstanding Debt" was
calculated based on a rough estimate of the current outstanding bond principal of the following
districts in the eastern territories: City of Chula Vista Assessment District No. 85-2, 86-1, 87-1,
88-1,88-2,90-1,90-3, and 91-1. It also included Chula Vista City School District Community
Facilities District No. I, 2, 3 and 4 as well as Sweetwater Union High School District
Community Facilities District No. I, 2, 3 and 4 whose boundaries are conterminous with the
previous Chula Vista City School District CFD's. An attempt was made to eliminate that portion
of the debt which exists on currently developed property, which has obtained building permits.
There is an additional approximately $13 million of outstanding debt on this property for
Improvement District No. 22 and 27 of the Otay Water District that has also been included. The
last column entitled "Remaining Allowable Debt" indicates that in the first fiscal year there may
be little if any capacity to place debt on these properties in their vacant condition. As
development occurs and the total value of developed improvements increase, there may be room
to place additional debt on this property.
Table 8.5 in the Cash Flow Analysis section of the Technical Appendix, brings information from
the previous tables together and provides a summary. Table 8.5 was divided into two cases,
namely "best case" and "worst case". An inflation/interest rate of 4% was used in both cases.
The "best case" considered development to occur as shown in Table 8.3. In this case the 125-
DIF revenue supported the funding required on a pay-as-you-go basis. The "worst case"
considers development stopping after the Phase 2 bond sale in FY 2001. In the "worst case",
additional revenues must support the funding required for Phase 3 and net annual debt service,
with an annual base undeveloped CFD tax.
72
)Lj/!~/O{)
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
The second row of Table 8.5, titled FY 92 Expense, follows the cost estimate in Chapter 5. The
first phase of improvements is estimated to be constructed in FY 1999 when the accumulated
number of trips was less than 140,000. Phases 2 and 3 were estimated to follow in two year
intervals. Capitalized interest, amounting to 8%, has been added to make debt service payments
for approximately one year while the improvements are under construction. The financing costs,
shown at 16.3%, include 10% for bond reserve, 2% bond discount and 2% issuance costs for a
total of 14% of bonds sold or 16.3% of costs before financing (that is 1 ~ 0.86). A level annual
debt service was utilized at 8 1/2% interest for 25 years. Interest earned on the reserve fund is
credited to the redemption fund. This interest is computed based on 60% of the maximum
reserve fund (taking into account possible delinquencies) at the applicable interest rate on the
previous year balance. The net annual debt service also is reduced by interest earned on the
funds collected assuming only 50% of the present years surplus earns interest. An undeveloped
land tax has been utilized in the "worst case" of Table 8.5. Since the existing outstanding debt
is approximately equal to the total capacity of the vacant land, an additional analysis and
appraisal will be required before this alternative can be selected.
The revenues are from two sources. The first source is from the l25-DIF at a minimum of
$143.00 per trip, which is adjusted for inflation. The second source of revenue is from the base
undeveloped tax, which is estimated to be $1,025.00 per vacant acre. Table 8.5 utilizes the
number of vacant acres in fiscal year 2001/02 when development stops, as 858 acres, as shown
in Table 8.3, plus 442 acres of additional vacant land in a location to be determined later.
6.10 Proposed 125-DIF Fees
The City should modify their existing T-DIF program to provide funding for the interim 125
facilities by creating a l25-DIF program. Based upon the following formula, we recommend
l25-DIF fees be established at a minimum of $143.00 per trip.
This cost is in addition to the T-DIF being collected for public improvements other than SR 125.
If the City decides to fund this project on a pay-as-you-go basis, and if development is lower in
future years, then the l25-DIF should be increased even higher.
The underlying methodology of the above formula is to assess property according to the number
of trips generated by the property.
73
FIll ~/o)
Interim State Route 125 - Funding
TABLE 6.10.1
MINIMUM 125-DIF FEES
FOR THE INTERIM SR 125 FACILITY
Residential (single family detached)
$1,430.00 per DU
Residential (single family attached)
$1,144.00 per DU
Residential (multi-family)
$858.00 per DU
Industrial
$28,600.00 per Acre
Commercial
$35,750.00 per Acre
Office
$35,750.00 per Acre
Medical Center
(Phase 3 only)
$92,950.00 per Acre
The final 125-DIF fees may be modified as additional information becomes available. The
immediate creation of the 125-DIF will allow the City to capture revenue which might otherwise
be lost. As development occurs, the City should insist that the 125-DIF fees be paid in cash.
By establishing one or more CFD's, the City will provide a reasonably secure method of
financing the interim facilities if and when they are ever needed. For those property owners not
wishing to participate in a CFD, the City may require an additional fee which includes the
present value of the CFD tax rate.
Another alternative which may be considered in the establishment of the final 125-DIF rate
involves the creation of two zones of benefit. The zone boundary is located approximately half
way between Interstate 805 and proposed State Route 125. Zone I would be located easterly of
Paseo Ranchero, Rancho Del Rey Parkway, Avenida Del Rey and Gtay Lakes Road. Zone 2
would be located westerly of the above described boundary. This alternative would charge
properties in Zone I at 100 percent of the trips shown in Table 8.2 and reduce Zone 2 to 75
percent of the trips shown on Table 8.2. If this is accomplished, the total number of adjusted
trips in Table 8.2 becomes 236,728 trips as shown in the following table.
74
/Y1 / /rJd-
Interim State Route 125 - Fundin~
TABLE 6.10.2
ADJUSTED TRIP ALTERNATIVE TO TABLE 8.2
Zone Non-Adjusted Benefit Adjusted Alternative
Trips Adjustment Factor Trips 125-DIF (Per Non-
(In Percent) Adjusted Trip)
I 166,471 100 166,471 $153.07
2 61,843 75 46.382 $114.80
228,314 212,853
This alternative is not recommended for the following reasons:
. The improvements proposed for interim State Route 125 are primarily arterials which are
part of the overall circulation system of the City and provide an overall benefit.
. The existing City of Chula Vista "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee For Streets"
does not distinguish separate zones of benefit for the total system.
. If the first units to be constructed are located in Zone 2, there may not be sufficient funds
to pay for the Phase I improvements.
Conclusions
1. The latest estimate of the construction cost for the total project is approximately $28
million in 1992 dollars. We anticipate additional cost increases to occur due to future
inflation and unanticipated construction costs and modifications.
2. The construction cost for the SR 54/SR 125 interchange is currently estimated at $54
million. This is not included in the project cost. SANDAG is expected to completely
fund the interchange through the use of Measure A monies.
3. There may not be sufficient monies available to fund this project on a pay-as-you-go
basis. Therefore, some form oflong term borrowing may be required to complete project
construction in a timely manner.
4. If the land value to lien amount (usually referred to as the lien to value ratio), falls below
3:1, the financing costs for any long term borrowing will increase significantly.
5. The formation of a Community Facilities District ("CFD") provides a financing process
that apportions the improvement costs to the properties according to the level of benefit
received. If future inflation is approximately 4%, an annual tax of approximate $1,025.00
75
/tj/} ~ /tJ3
Interim State Route 125 - Fundin~
per acre for an undeveloped parcel, would appear to be adequate to fund the interim SR
125 facilities in three phases.
Recommendations
1. The City should immediately begin the formation of a single CFD or multiple CFD's in
the study area to undertake the funding of the interim roadway facility. The CFD should
include all future development and properties that benefit from the construction of the
project.
2. The City should consider a phased approach to financing the project. The amount and
frequency of any long term borrowing should balance the capacity for debt of the
property in the CFD against the construction requirements for the project.
3. The 125-DIF rates should be established at a minimum of $143.00 per trip to include the
project's construction costs and 2% for City administration costs to assure equity and be
adjusted annually according to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
4. As a condition of approval, all developments (subject to the 125-DIF), should be required
to pay up front their share of costs in cash for the project or agree to become part of the
CFD.
5. If the interim facility is acquired by CTV, property owners within the CFD should receive
a credit for both the applicable portion of the special taxes levied and the applicable 125-
DIF for the construction cost of the project.
6. Negotiations with Caltrans and CTV should be undertaken to coordinate the plan and
ensure the continued tax-exempt status of any long term borrowing for the CFD. The
possible lease and operation of the project by crv, a private organization, may cause the
CFD bonds to be classified as "private activity bonds". Staff would need to carefully
structure the legal documents to ensure that any future use by CTV does not change the
tax-exempt status of any borrowing by the CFD.
We have prepared a preliminary estimate of the rate of development within the study area and
future debt capacity of the land. Additional study would refine these projections to a confidence
level acceptable to the City, the underwriting community and investors for any debt offerings by
the CFD.
76
JLt4 -/07
Section 7
LEGAL
/1/;1- /05
Interim State Route 125 -Legal
7.0 Introduction
A financing as broad in scope as that contem plated by this report raises numerous legal questions
which must, at some point, be addressed. At the preliminary stage, however, only certain legal
issues need to be mentioned in order to focus and assist the decisional process; these include the
following:
7.1 Franchise Agreement
On December 31,1990 Caltrans entered into an exclusive franchise agreement with CTV. Under
article III of the agreement, Caltrans granted CTV "Exclusive Development Rights" with respect
to "Transportation Facilities" located within the franchise zone. The franchise zone is generally
described as a 6 mile wide south-north corridor having SR-125 as its center axis and bordered
on the south by the Mexican border and on the north by SR 52. Caltrans acknowledges in the
agreement that competing transportation facilities are likely to adversely affect CTV's
development of SR-125 as a toll road; accordingly, Caltrans agreed; 1) to use its best efforts to
influence local agencies to refrain from developing competing transportation facilities, or other
facilities identified by CTV, the development or operation of which might reasonably be foreseen
to materially affect the revenue of the cry project; and 2) to refrain from exercising its
discretionary power to initiate, authorize, endorse, construct or improve a non-Caltrans owned
"Competitive Transportation Facility".
The existence of the franchise agreement means that the agreement or cooperation of Caltrans
with respect to any City project will also require the agreement or cooperation of CTV if the
project is deemed by them to be competitive (i.e., if the City project has the potential to
adversely impact the revenue to CTY). Also, if the City project is to be transferred to Caltrans,
because of the expectation that the project may then be leased to CTV, issues arise regarding the
use of public funds for the benefit of private entities. It is our professional opinion a thorough
review of these and other matters should be completed prior to committing to construction of any
segment where these issues are involved. At this time, however, City Staff is comfortable with
the recommendations outlined in this study prior to completion of further investigation.
7.2 Taxable Bonds
Generally, bonds issued by a local agency for public roads are "tax-exempt" (i.e., the interest paid
with respect to the bonds is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes). Tax-exempt
status improves the financing by lowering the interest rate on the bonds. If, however, the
roadway is expected to be leased long-term to CTV, the issue of the road in the trade or business
of CTV may make the bonds "taxable". Care should be taken to structure the financing to
achieve and maintain a tax-exempt status of the bonds.
7.3 Extended Jurisdiction
The contemplated financing extends the proposed Mello-Roos district beyond the City's limits.
The consent of the County of San Diego will be required for the formation of the district
78
rIA - / ;J &
Section 8
TECHNICAL
APPENDIX
/111 ' / j} 7
Appendix A
Land Use Classification
Ji /} -/tJ fI
Interim State Route 125 - Technical Appendix
LEGEND
T AZ BOUNDARIES
CITY STREET
STATE ROUTE ~5 CORR~OR
~ INTERSTATE
4 STATE ROUTE
No Scole
NNN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
Figure 8.1 - SANDAG Traffic Analysis Zones
81
/ L//l - /07'
.;
.
~
.0
~!:
gl!
:u ~
5~
O~ ~
~-
~:::;
e~
~::
0-0 vi
!l!t!
o
~
t:ij B
"I;::
G.~ W
!l
o
2
uu
-<
.,
~~ ~
<
~
o
'"
""
o
~
IIIU ~
S~
&l~ ill
<
o
~
~
~
o
~- :
8~ ...
~e ;
~
o
~
Q
Z
<
UU
<
-;::
06 3
<
o
~
....u 2
~~
;;~
- ~
~- ~-
~~
!~ ~
~u ~_.
-<
~,
~~ ~
~~ ~
Z~
~Q)
~i ~
z_ ..
N
<
-
g$!:a~~~-4'~::s~t2: ....
~;:X~""."""CI..J:::~a:.",..,.,.._.. ~
_10\..0 ......!:i!",-- ~
OClOOOOOOOOO 0
00000000000 0
o
E
OOOOClOOOOOO 0
OOOC>OOOClOC>C> CI
OO;:O~~00002 ~
OOaoONOOOOOO.... ""'
N <
~.
OO~O~C>Qc:>C>OO
OO;::O/lOC>OOOOO
OC>ClOC>~..~ClOOO
_N
OOOOCls;!}QOOOO
00000000000 0
OClOOOOClOOOO 0
o
5
oooooooo~o
00000000000
OOOOOOOOOClCl 0
OOOOc>c>c>OOOO CI
oC>ooooo~oC>o
:of
0000000....000
~
OOOOOOQ~OOO ~
....... .n
ooooooo~ooo ~
o
E
Sl:~O:;;:Or-'~CI~~~ ~
~..M..F:!....,. Oi,N.. ......~-.. ...
-....'" "'.... ,.,-- re"
O;;:OOOOC:>l;>~OO . ~
ooooo~~oooo ~
Q
~
~!C~~O~~OO~E ~
::~R:~~~~~R:~;!
,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,,,l"'l,,,....
.
U
~
~
Q
Z
~
-
11::
UW
SQ
~OO-o""OO"4'N
..0........'" _"'-_
.......~"':.O.. '"':......0:.
....~:j:;::;2 ~.,g-
O~OC>OO~I':>O !il
0....0000"'00 0.
oo~oooooo
~
~
000000000
~.
QOClS!)COJ;?OQ
OOQ.a~o;:!:oo
II!
OCl~O~OOOO
~
oo_o::!oooo
~
~.
oooo~o~~oo
< -
~
00000.0000
< -
00(:>000000
:g :g
Oc:;..;.~(:>OilOO
Q
OOClOOOOOO
Q
OOOCOOOClC
000000000 0
oC>ooococo
ill
:of
O~~!':~~ClOOO
""~o: ~
~
~
o-o~o~oooo
2$0000000
....~o-~
....:g!:;a88~~
g.:"t...._~...........-.-.
E "';:"'....O>N_
0000000 0 0
0000000 0 <:>
!!
~.
0000000
~~ooooooo ~ oooo~oo ~
o
~.
0000000
ooo~.gQ~.~_~. a g~~8 ......... ~ ~
.", "'- - "1.,..-.~.Q:.:... '"
~ ~-o_ ~ .....-0_.... ....._ ~
ooooooo~o S!
!!
0000000
~
ooo~~o~~~ ~ o~ooooo ~
,.;
OOOSiOO~Or:::!
Oo............,Oo~~~Q
0__.....1""1 OoN
1")...............'" l"'l....
~
Q
~
o
~~
~iI
~
~
5
~
~
O~OOQClO
o
os
ooooooc
::!
ClClOOOOO
~ 008__0000
~. -
S!i 00;:0000
o 0000000 CI
:e.
:!!
OC>OClOOCl
o
0000000
o
<:>000000
0000000 0
0000000 0 ...
~. o~ooooo
N
::J o~oooc>O
S
i
OOOOOOCl
I<l
~.
O~Q~OOO ~
~ ~
0. 00 ON 00"""'"
;:1;. :::J ::~ ;;::
~N~IC~~S!
....j:........"';J.::.t
~
g ~
i a
o
~
o
;~
":Q:",,:,,
Xi:JC::6~:<1
Ii ~ .:,.; ....
Q
o
Q
o
Ii: 0
5! 0
Q
o
Q
o
~. 0
::: 0
Q
Q
Q II!
<'
o ~
!!
~ ~.
5!
N
N
!l
~.
Q
Q
Q
"
Q
~ 0
it
<
~
~
U
o
00 0
QO Q
QO
QO
QO
QO
QO
QO
QO
QQ
QO
QO
QO
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
~s. ~
_N -,#-
OQ
Q~
~
llQ
~~
w
~
U
-
~
~
,
!'!
Il ~}lJi!.l!. ::;",0:
",..,.-", T
00000
o
00000
o
o
00000
Q
o
00000
Q.
o
$OC;lOO $
Q
~OC;lOO ~
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
OOO~O ~
o
OOO~O ~
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
.
~
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
00000 0
o
OOOOOlO
OOOOQiQ
00Sl:0~:0
;:Plt ~: Kl~
""..,. "'1::
00000:0
001l00!1l
0:!&0~:t:
"",., "": ~~;
R:~~~~
~1
~. ~i/ ()
o
o
~
~
II
=
!
i:I
;/ ..
_.u
~)V1
Table 6.1
LAND USE & TRIPS. ASOP11l19O
..._._________..._....____n__________............_.____n__.__............__.____________._........____________00._.00._......_..____00__._..............___________00_____._..._..__...___..___....u...____nn___
__............_._______________.._.._.._..___._.________n_........_____.__.___________.._......._..____n___nn.................__________.........__....___n_________.....-...______.__._...._........___________
,. Z
RESIDENTIAL
(10,S,6T/IlU)
IWUSTRIAL
(200T/AC)
CCMlfRC1AL
(500T/AC)
OffiCE
(300T/AC)
OTe
(33T/AC)
OOLF lXlIRSE
(ST/AI:)
SCHOOlS
(lOOT/At)
Pl8L1C
(SOT/AC)
PARk:S
(5T/At)
MEDICAL CENTER
(26T / 1000Sf)
DUl"
(40T/AC)
TOTAL
TRIPS
~.~_~.~_~_:_~nn_________!~~__L_!~~_.._..~~~____u!~!~!n____~~~...!~~~!_____~:~~n_~~!~__n~~~_._~~!~!_n~~~_n~~!~!n__~:~~___~~!~!_n~:~~_..!~!~!.u_~~~_n~~~~__._~:~~_..!~!~!nn_!:~:m!~~~!...__~~__!~!~!n.n..___
SAN MIO..U RANCK 261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2773600360 00000000000000000000360
280 36J 0 0 3,630 0 0 14 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 105 0 0 1 40 10,775
283 143 0 0 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,430
284 316 0 0 3,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,160
287 142 0 0 1,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,420
___...__________________._______......_......__...___._____._._.......__00__________........_........._.__._00___..._._........._._.00_______...._.......__.__________________..._......___._...00__.___........_____._____________..
SUBTOTALS
_______......_._._.._.........._.__________._..___........__..._._____._._........___.______.___00._____._............____.___00____............_.___________.___........._._.________.____.............__________......._.....------
1,000
o
o 10,000
o
o
14 7,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
21
IOS
o
o
40 17,145
OTAY RANCH
VILlAGf 1 436 256 0 0 2,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,560
418 343 0 0 3,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,430
443 340 0 0 3,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,400
403 340 0 0 3,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,400
396 0 631 631 8,834 0 0 23 11,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1,000 13 650 10 50 0 0 0 0 22,034
377 226 0 0 2,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,260
425 340 0 0 3,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,400
VILLAGE 5 365 0 651 650 9,1oa 0 0 8 4,000 2 600 0 0 0 0 10 1,000 "550 10 50 0 0 0 0 15,308
344 325 0 0 3,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,250
384 323 0 0 3,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,230
433 325 0 0 3,250 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,250
394 325 0 0 3,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,250
..__._...__.___.____________._.____________.......___.______00______......._.____.__00__________..._......._..____._______________........__......____________00__......._._.__._._.______________..__..._._0000____..___.__..._...--.
SUQTOTAL$ 3,143 1,262 1,281 49,3n 0 0 31 15,500 2 600 0 0 0 0 20 2,000 24 1,200 20 100 0 0 0 0 68,m
.__......___________________.____________.__.............__________........___..__.______.__________................_00__________................_...___________._...__......_....____.____________.........______.__________.........
I1:)NTlLLO 325 123 230 0 3,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,070
...._.____.________.__..______00._____._................-.-.-------.-.-....---------------------------.....--..-..----.----------.--.................-......----.-.....--..................__n____._.u...............______.____...
BONITA MEAClQo'S 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
._____.__._........__________............._.___.______._..__._..........._.___._____._....._._..__..._..___.________..__00____00__..__..______.__.__________________.........____._.___00_._________......._._.______________........_
CANYON VIE~
335
o
"
o
320
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
320
..._._....___.__________00______._._.__.....__._.____.___________..........____________..___..__................_.____00_.__._...................._______________...._...-..-.........--.-------------..........----....--.-----.....
WXDCREST s.w.
369
54
o
o
540
o
o
o
o
,0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
5"
............_.._...._._._............_.._.._........_..____00_.._......_...........__.._______00__._.........__.........__.._________.___._.._.............__..________..__.__.___.........__.....-......-------------..-........-.......--------.---.......---.......--..-
LADERA VilLA.
414
29
o
o
290
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
290
...............___.___..........__.._.......__________00___.._.._........_.......__.._________..__..._..._.._.._.___.._....__00_00_________....................______________............__._....._..___________.____..............______00...._............______
WXDCREST T.N.
325
86
o
o
ll60
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ll60
.._..__........_....____........_...._....___._....._.._n....._.................___________.......................__u________..___..__.........._.........__n___________..___.__..._....._..________00_______00__00._..._......__...____00____....__......___.._....__
9OlWINIT.C.JI.
332
34\
o
o 3,410
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 3,410
__....................__..__.................._.._____00___.._..._.._..__....._..............______..__..__........_....._.......____..______..___.___....................._..__n_.____....__..._.......__..______.._..__________.__u..._.....__________.....____.....__u........_
G1WIl TOTALS 10,460 5,219 2,983 164,250 146 29,200 176 98,868 5 1,500 150 4,950 160 1,280 137 13,700 56 2,800 143 715 1,350 35,100 10 400 352,763
="''''''''''''''.'''..._........''''''......,.,.,.''''''.'''-................:c"''="...,,....=...........'''.._..................."'................==............._."..........."....="....===..====="'''.......Clat..............""'.."".="'.==="''''='''==:......''''''...._...."..--...====:=='''='''''..........."=....,,..=,,====:==.....
..___.._........._..._.._._..._..____....___................_........__..__....______..____._........._______00__________0000.._...._.._______u.._________n_n_._..._u.........__n.__..n_____.._.._..................._._....____n__.._..........__._..__..______n...._..
. At City" recfJeSt, e~refal trip rate for Rn:ho Del Rey Is 697.6 1'rlps/Aere per JHk:, July 17,1992, report.
-"'
~
\
'--
'--
"--
Pag.2
12/16/92
Table 8.2
lAND USE & TRIPS FOR fiNANCIAL PLAN' AS Of 1/1/92
PROJECT
RESIDENTIAL
00,B,6 T/OU}
...... _. _...... .__ _.. _ un.. _ _ _ _..... n.. _ n.... _... n _ _........ _ _................_....... _.... u___....... _ .n. n'. ..n. _ _...... _......... _.... - - - -.. n - __ _..n _. - - ...... - - --.... - - - -...- -. ...n - - -.. n. -..
TOTAL
INDUSTRIAL
(200 T/AC)
SCHOOlS
(0 T/AC)
PUBLIC
(0 T/AC)
PARKS
(0 T/AC)
MEDICAL CTR
(650 T/AC)
CKURCH
(0 TIN:.)
CCMlERCIAl
(250 T/AC)
OffiCE
(250 TlAC)
ore
(0 T/AC)
GOLF COJRSE
(0 T/AC)
_ __ _..... _ _. h...... _....... __.... n... _ _ _. .... _ _.. _... _ _....... _...... n.. _ _..n..... _ _ _... h..... _ _...._ _ _...... _ _..... - _ _..... - - -... n_. - -...... - - -.... - n -. n.._ - - -.... ..-... -.. -.... - -............... --
........... _ _ _ _...... _ _ _ _ _...._ n _... n. _ __....... _ _ _ _ _..... _ _ _ n'" _..... ....... _ __. _ _.. n. n _ _..... _ _ _..... _ _.. n.. _ _ _........ n...n......_ _ _... - n _......_ -......- - - h H"_ - - -. n.. -.. .... - - n"'_ -. -... ...... -. n - -....
GRACRE
RANCKO DEL REV
R.D.R.(SFD)
R.O.R.(SFA)
R.O.R. (MfA)
417.4 1754
44.6 461
86.0 588
O.U. TRIPS
17540
3688
352B
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS ACRE
TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRETRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
TRIPS
RDR TOTAL
548.0 2803
.__.....____......_......._.........__.........._...............__......__ ...._.................___...______............__...____...n.._......._.....___.....____......_....____......____......_...........__n....__.....
o 26,530
24756
28
5600
14
3500
o
o
o
o
o
35
19
o
43
o
0.00
o
o 33,856
_......_......______.......___......._..........._...._.____.....___....._ .....___.....____...._____n....__...._.__...._n__...........__....._n_.......___...___.....___..._.___......_._....._._...._......._n...._....
EASTlAKE
BUSINESS 1
o
o
63
12600
24
6000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 12.2
7930
GREENS (Sf D)
GREENS (Sf A)
GREENS (MfA)
251.0 1069
163.0 1987
24.0 483
. __.. n_._ _......... _ _ _..... n _ _ _ _ _....._ _ _....... _ _ _....... _.. _.... _ _ _... _....... _ _ _..... _ n _ _... _. __ _ _ _... _ _..... _ _ _..... _ _ __.... _ _ _ _..... - -.... - - --..... - n -.. n_ n _.... _ _ _....... - - -...... - -.... --........ hn. - n - - -...
10691l
158%
2898
.__n_.._._____n..._..____...._..____....._____.......___......__.....__....__n_......_.........___....___.....___......__.....__..._._____....__.....__n.....__n....___.u_.___....._.___.....__....._..n.___....n._....
GREENS TOTAL
438.0 3539
.....__........_____.._...__._........_.........___....._____....__._....__n......_.h.....____....___._.....__...___n_..._.__....._......__.......__......___...___n..________.____._....___...._____..._n_..._n._...____
SUNBO.l(SfO)
SUNB().l(SFA)
SUNBa.I(MfA)
266.2 1128
47.2 5Ell
16.3 238
29484
11280
4640
1428
o
o
45
11250
o
o
o
o
160
59
o
12
o
37
o
o
o 40,734
o
SUNBa.I TOTAL
329.7 1946
_... _. _ _ _ _ _.. _.... _ _ _ _ _...... _... _... u__ _........ _ _ _..... _ _ _ _..... _ _ h.. _. _ _ n..... _ _ _ n _.. _ _ _ _ _..... _ _ _.. __. _ n _... _ _ _ h... _. _ _.... _ _ _ _.. .__ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _ _.. - - - - n" -. -.... -. - - - -. -. -. - -- - -.. -. - u .n_ -- -... - - - n....._
o
22
5500
3
750
150
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 7,150
17348
46
9200
10
2500
o
o
o
o
o
11
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o 29,048
o T C (MfA)
6.0
_ _..... __ _ _...... n_ _ _ _ _....... ._...... n_......... _ _ _ _..... _ _._.... _. ___. _ _ _........ __ _....._......... - u..... _....._ _....... - - _. n_ - _..... _. - _...._ - _....... _...... -. -..... - -.... -.. -.....- - -.....- - - -.... - -..... - _u.... - u.
......___._.......__........___.u.....__n_......_.......___-...----....------...----.......--.....---......--.-...----...----.....--....-..-....-.-.-......----..-.-.....---....----....-.----...-.....--...............-....
SALT CREEK 1
. s.C.l. (SFD)
S.c.1. (Sf A)
S.C.1. (MFA)
28.9
19.2
8.5
__....._._........_..._......_____......___.......___.....____....___......_n......__._.....__n...___.__...__n....____..____......_n_...___.....__n.....___.....__.....____..____...u.___....___....n_...__n....____...
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 3,604
150
110
20S
144
900
o
SALT CRK 1 TOTAL
56.6
._..._.._____....._____..........__......_____...______.....__....___n_...___n....____......_.......____...n_.....__._...__.....___.n...____....__....u.____....____..___..._____.n.._____...___.....___...._____....__..
SALT CREEK RANCK
S.C.R. (SFD)
S.C.R. (SFA)
S.C.R. (MfA)
150.1 1007
0.0 0
15.6 60
459
10070
o
360
1100
1640
864
3604
o
s.c. RANCK TOTAL
165.7 1067
..___..........__........_........_____....._.____.._.____._...___.....___......___......___.....___..._____.....__._.._.__.....__.....____......_......._.h....n._...__....___.....____......__...____.....___....._n....._
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
12
o
o
12
o
o
o
o 10,430
._______.......n_......____.........___......___......__.....___...._.___.......___...n.__u..__..n...____.....__......-....---.......--.....---.....--.......--..........--...-------....---.-...--......---....---.....---
SAN MIGtl:l RANCN
S.M.R. (SFD)
S.H.R. (SFA)
S.H.R. (MfA)
423.0 1000
o
o
10430
10000
o
o
o
SAN HIGU::l TOTAL
423.0 1000
._.n.______........___._........_._................___....._......_.__.....___...._._.__....._.....n__......._h...___....____.....__n...___.....___.......___.n___....__....__........_.......__._...._n..__._.....___...
o
14
3500
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
21
o
o
o
o 13,500
...__............ ___..n....___._... ...._._......_._......__...n__........ _.._....._......_.n.....___.._...._ _..._n......_........n.....___ n. .____.. .._ ___.....___...___...___ _....._..._....._...u___.....n............
"-
~
\
'--
'-
)v
10000
o
Table 8.2
lAND USE
.
TRIPS FOR FINANCIAL PLAN' AS OF 1/1/92
PRO J E C T
.....----........---.-...........---.........--...-----.....-.--.......----.-.....-.-..........---.-.......--.....-.----......-.-......--.-......---....----........--.......---.....---..............---...
TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
(10,8,6 T/oo)
INDUSTRIAL
(200 T/AC)
C<H<lERCIAL
(250 T/AC)
OFFICE
(250 T/AC)
ore
(OT/AC)
GOLF CllJRSE
(OT/AC)
SCHOOLS
(OT/AC)
P\J8LIC
(OT/AC)
PARKS
(0 T/AC)
MEDICAL crR
(650 T/AC)
CHURCK
(0 T/AC)
..__n_._......._n.__...._n__......______......u_......_.._...................n__.......un_.....____n.....____.....__u......n_u.nn._n.....___.........__.............____....___._____.._.....-
......_n.._........_u_........___......_.._.___........___...__._00__.._ .n._....._u___...u..___n.......___.__....__n.__._u_..._...___.....___.n.......n......._.................__._.._.___......_..........--..--
OTAY RANCK
VILLAGE 1
S.H.R. (SFD)
S.H.R. (SFA)
S.H.R. (MFA)
GRACRE
485.0 1845
43.5 631
43.5 631
O.U. TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS ACRE TRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
ACRETRIPS
ACRE TRIPS
TRIPS
18450
504ll
3786
VIL. 1 TOTAL
...___..........__.....______....________......___.n._......__n_......._............................._........._.................___........__...............____.....___......_._...._.._n__...._____...._n......_n....._
o
o
23
5750
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
10
o
o
o
o 33,034
______..._._.____......____......_.........______...........___.....__n_......n......_______......________.__._.___.....u_n..._.___.....__._....______......__.___...___...______.....______...._n__....___......_........
VILLAGE 5
S.H.R. (SFD)
S.H.R. (SFA)
S.M.R. (MFA)
572.0 3107 27284
288.5 1296
44.9 651
44.8 650
o
13
o
o
12900
5208
3900
-.......-.-----.....-.-.-.......-.----.--....--.--........---.......---........--.-....-.-.-.......---.-......----.....--.--....----........---......---......----.....--......-----......---......-.....---.-....---........"
o
o
31
7750
500
o
o
o
20
o
24
o
20
o
o
o
o 57,622
VIL. 5 TOTAL
378.2 2599
22088
o
o
8
2000
500
o
o
o
10
o
11
o
10
o
o
o 24,588
o
o
2
...___.....____......____........__.......n......_____..._._...n..___......_n.....__......._.
__....._._._____._..._.___........00.__.__.....____...........__...._.__........._._...____._......._.___......___...
OTAY RANCH TOTAL
950.2 5706 493n
o
BREHM' SFO
BREHM' SFA
_ _....... _. _ _ _ _ _...... ._u..... n.............. _. _......... _ _....... _...... __._._ _ ._....... _. __..... n _ __.... _.._......._ _ _. .n.n n." __. __ n __... _. _ _ _....... n _...._ n _..... n_ _........ - - u..._ 00 _.... - - - --.... n -..... -.--
o
o
3.3
18.2
22
230
220
1840
......___..__......._.__....._...____......_.__n_....._____._....___n......_n_......______......____......____....._.__......_n__....._____.._..____.....___....._.____....n____...._n_n.._._......__......._.....__.__.
21.5
o 2,060
252
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2060
....____...................__.........._._.........__._...._..__n_....___.._....._.._.......___._...__n_....._..___....._.n_.....___......____....__n_........__...______..__.._.__.....____...._____....n....._n....._..
fok)lTlLLO TOTAL
WlITA HEMlQ,J-SFD
0.0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
......_n...........__......_.__..._......_.___......._n.._....._n_........n___...._..__...._............___..__.___n_..___n__.....__......._......._..__.....__......_..__.......____....__.....__......_.__..__n.......
40
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
40
CANYON VIE'" - SFA
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
...__........__._____.....___..__.........____....._..___....__..__....._...__.....__..u....._..__.....___......_._...u....__.....___......._n...._._.._.....____......___....___._......__n...___.....___.....n........__
o
I.t((lCRSTS1,I- SFtI
1.4
o
o
LADERA VILLA 'SFtI
...nn.........._.__.....____.._......_.____.._...__..__.....____..n.______......._.__......___......._..........__..__..._._......___.....___......_n_...._...__.....___.____..__.......--.....-.-......-00.....-......-.-.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
300
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
n......__._.___._...uu_..........___...........__......___.......__._.......n_........_._......._.._.....___.._......__....____....._._.._..____.__....._........__.__._..___......____._...__._....__.....____....n_.....
____...__.__..___n....___._........___._.........____......____.....__n_....._.____......._._........__...............___....._.._._....._....._._.__....._n_._..______...._-...-......-.....--.....--.--..............-....
I.t((lCRSTTN'SFD
9.2
o
o
o
30
300
BAtD'NIN/TCR . SFO 80.7 344 3440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,440
...____n..___.....______......._._n.......______.....__._n............_...__.........._.....____n......_.____.._...._....._-........--....---.......-----.-....00--.....--.......----......____...___._.._.n_....____...__
rOT A l S 3,030.0 17300 151734 137 27400 160 40000 1250 150 0 160 0 137 0 56 0 143 0 12.2 7930 10 0228,314
,,==,,=========""==,,=,,=,,=======,,=""===,,=""""""=====""="'''==",,=,,=,,======"1111"===""==="==="=="""="====="==="===""="===""====="==,,,,=====,,,,=======,,,,=======::="="""="="======""=======:==::=="==::=,,,,=====,,,,==::
"-..
~
~
\:)
Appendix B
Development Schedule
/t)/J- /J'/
Table 8.3
Table 8.3
o EVE LOP MEN T SCHEDULE
f I S C A L ........................................--.-.................-...---------.---.-..----............-...-...-----
YEA R S f 0 S f A MfA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OffICE MED CENTER TOTALS
-----~--_.._._._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991/92 D.U./Developed Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0
Vacant Acres 2,405 380.6 244 .7 137 160 5 12.2 3,344
1992/93 D.U./Developed Acres 693 390 217 15 11 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips . 6930.0 3120.0 1302.0 3000 2750 0 0 17,102
Vacant Acres 2231. 3 349.3 226.7 122 149 5 12.2 3,095
1993/94 D.U./Developed Acres 1386 780 434 30 22 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 13860.0 6240.0 2604.0 6000 5500 0 0 34,204
Vacant Acres 2057.9 318.0 208.6 107 138 5 12.2 2,847
1994/95 D.U./Developed Acres 2079 1170 651 45 33 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 20790.0 9360.0 3906.0 9000 8250 0 0 51,306
Vacant Acres 1884.5 286.8 190.6 92 127 5 12.2 2,598
1995/96 D.U./Developed Acres 2772 1560 868 60 44 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 27720.0 12480.0 5208.0 12000 11000 0 0 68,408
Vacant Acres 1711.1 255.5 172.6 77 116 5 12.2 2,349
1996/97 D.U./Developed Acres 3465 1950 1085 75 55 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 34650.0 15600.0 6510.0 15000 13750 0 0 85,510
Vacant Acres 1537.7 224.2 154.5 62 105 5 12.2 2,101
1997/98 D.U./Developed Acres 4158 2340 1302 90 66 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 41580.0 18720.0 7812.0 18000 16500 0 0 102,612
Vacant Acres 1364.4 192.9 136.5 47 94 5 12.2 1,852
1998/99 D.U./Developed Acres 4851 2730 1519 105 77 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 48510.0 21840.0 9114.0 21000 19250 0 0 119,714
"- Vacant Acres 1191.0 161.6 118.4 32 83 5 12.2 1,603
~
~
~
Table 8.3
Table 8.3
D EVE LOP MEN T S C H E D U L E
F I S C A L ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEA R S F D S F A MFA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE MED CENTER TOTALS
-------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999/2000 D.U./Developed Acres 5544 3120 1736 120 88 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 55440.0 24960.0 10416.0 24000 22000 0 0 136,816
Vacant Acres 1017.6 130.3 100.4 17 72 5 12.2 1,355
2000/01 D.U./Developed Acres 6237 3510 1953 137 99 0 0
Adj. Developed Trips 62370.0 28080.0 11718.0 27400 24750 0 0 154,318
Vacant Acres 844.2 99.1 82.4 0 61 5 12.2 1,104
2001/02 D.U./Developed Acres 6930 3900 2170 137 110 0 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 69300.0 31200.0 13020 . 0 27400 27500 0 7930 176,350
Vacant Acres 670.8 67.8 64.3 0 50 5 0.0 858
2002/03 D.U./Developed Acres 7623 4290 2387 137 121 0 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 76230.0 34320.0 14322.0 27400 30250 0 7930 190,452
Vacant Acres 497.4 36.5 46.3 0 39 5 0.0 624
2003/04 D.U./Developed Acres 8316 4680 2604 137 132 0 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 83160.0 37440.0 15624.0 27400 33000 0 7930 204,554
Vacant Acres 324.0 5.2 28.3 0 28 5 0.0 390
2004/05 D.U./Developed Acres 9009 4745 2821 137 143 0 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 90090.0 37960.0 16926.0 27400 35750 0 7930 216,056
Vacant Acres 150.6 0.0 10.2 0 17 5 0.0 183
2005/06 D.U./Developed Acres 9611 4745 2944 137 154 0 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 96110.0 37960.0 17664.0 27400 38500 0 7930 225,564
Vacant Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6 5 0.0 11
2006/07 D.U./Developed Acres 9611 4745 2944 137 160 5 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 96110.0 37960.0 17664.0 27400 40000 1250 7930 228,314
Vacant Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0
'"
~
\
'-...
~
'-
~
,
'-......
'--
---0
Table 8.3
Table 8.3
D EVE LOP MEN T S C H E D U L E
FISCAL
YEA R
~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S F D
S F A
MFA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE MED CENTER TOTALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007/08 D.U./Developed Acres 9611 4745 2944 137 160 5 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 96110.0 37960.0 17664.0 27400 40000 1250 7930 228,314
Vacant Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0
2008/09 D.U./Developed Acres 9611 4745 2944 137 160 5 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 96110.0 37960.0 17664.0 27400 40000 1250 7930 228,314
Vacant Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0
2009/10 D.U./Developed Acres 9611 4745 2944 137 160 5 12.2
Adj. Developed Trips 96110.0 37960.0 17664.0 27400 40000 1250 7930 228,314
Vacant Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0
Appendix C
Allowable Debt
/1/1 - //Y
Table 8.4
All 0 ~ A B l E DEBT ( DOL LA R S I' THO USA N D S )
......................................................................................................................................................-.......................-.............
...............RESIDENTIAl "''''.."'''"...,,..
S FD S , A . , A INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OffiCE MEO.CENTER TOTAL TOTAL VALUE TOTAL ""- REMAINING
, I SCAL Developed Values: 5200 K/CU 51S0K/DU 570 K/OU 5S0/Sf $70/Sf 570/SF 570/SF VALUE OF OF DEVELOPED ALLOWABLE STANDING AllOWABLE
'1EAR Vacant v.lues: 550K/AC 550 K/AC 550K/At 550 K/AC 550 K/At 550K/AC 550 K/AC VACANT LAND IMPROVEMENTS lIENIJ3.5:1 DEBT DEBT
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
1991/92 D.U. I DeveLoped S.F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Developed Value SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
Vacant Acres 2,405 380.6 244.70 m 160 S 12.2
Vacant VaLue 5120,235 519,030 512,235 56,850 sa,ooo 5250 $610 5167,210 SO 547,774 598,000 (550,226)
1992/93 D.U. I Developed S.F. '" 390 217 150,000 110,000 0 0
Developed Value 5138,600 558,500 515,190 57,500 57,700 SO SO
Vacant Acres 2,231.3 349.3 226.66 '" '" 5 12.2
Vacant Value 5111,565 517.466 511,333 $6,100 57,450 5250 $610 5154,m 5227,490 5109,218 598,000 511,218
1991194 D.U. I Developed S.F. 1,3B6 780 m 300,000 220,000 0 0
Developed Value 52n,200 5117,000 530,380 515,000 515,400 SO SO
Vacant Acres 2,057.9 318.0 208.6 107 138 5 12.2
Vacant Value 5102,896 515,902 510,431 55,350 $6,900 5250 $610 5142,339 $1,54,980 5110,663 598,000 5n,663
1994/95 D.U. I DevelopedS.F. 2,079 1,170 651 450,000 330,000 0 0
Developed Value $1,15,800 5175,500 545,570 522,500 523,100 SO SO
Vacant Acres 2,m.O 1560.0 191 92 127 5 12.2
Vacant Value 5138,600 578,000 59,530 $4,600 $6,350 5250 $610 5237,940 S682,470 5262,974 598,000 5164,914
1995/96 D.U. I Developed S.F. 2.m 1,560 868 600,000 440,000 0 0
"- Developed Value 5554,400 5234,000 $60,760 530,000 530,800 SO SO
'Z Vacant Acres 1,711 255.5 173 n '16 5 12.2
Vacant Value 185,557 512,n4 $8,628 53,850 $5,800 5250 $610 5111,468 5909,960 5293,551 598,000 1195,551
~996197 D.U. I Developed S.F. 3,465 1,950 1,085 750,000 550,000 0 0
Oeveloped Value 1693,000 5292,500 575,950 137,500 $38,500 SO SO
\ Vacant Acres 1,538 224.2 1SS " 105 5 12.2
'-.... Vacant Value 576,887 $11,209 11,n6 53,100 55,250 1250 $610 5105,On 11,137,450 5354,995 598,000 5256,995
--
~ Page 1 02/05/93
~
.;
-
:0
:.
~::
s ~ ~
'" ~
w ~
~ c
~~
~ ~ lD
o ~ C>
w
~ ~
~~:
c ~
~
o
z
c
~
~
o
... Q ~
~ ... ~
:; ~ ~
-' :::: :>
~ = :
g ~ ~
~
-' l:i j
c
g 3 ~
~ ~
>
~
~
c
~ u
~ ~ 5
w
;::5::
~ ... M
Z
o
o
w
~ ~ ~
w'Z
o g ~
~ ~
z
~
~~~
~ ~ ~
w
o
z
c
>
o
~
c w
~ ~ ~
~
~
c
.
.
.
~ w
: -< ~ ~
i z ~ i
:
~
c
~
~ 0 w
~ < ~ ~
~ ~~
~ :;;::.;
.
.
I :: ~
O~NCI
ci~
o~ iC
~
ggg,g
ON W
~~ ~~ -:,'
~ ~
~ C
gg!:;~
00 ~
O~ ......~ N
o ~ c
z ~
NO..g ...,.
O..r .., N
~ _ Z
;;: ~'
C
*g~~
",,~, ~ ~
~
:::g~~
~~N
...,.- i -~-
~ ~.
..
> >
~
I~
o
~ ~ 5 ~
01<>
'0 ~
V lii i
~ ~ ~ ~
c (;) :> :>
OJ ~
g. ~
.. >
>
-
o
c .
c
z
!1:
~
~
~
~
z'
;;;
~
o
g
.;
l;
~
~
~
~'
i
~
z,
~
:;
w
~-
l;
00 0
"'cl$
00
c
g&a~
o~.., ..;
J::~ toO
00
00
o ~
~- :;::-
o c
~ s: :2 :::::
.....", 0..
-'8' :;
:;
~~~~
",- Oo-:!:! <<J'
~ ~
~
0_ z
.... Q 00 .....
co '" _ ....
"",- o' 00'
w ~
~ ~
c
I-
~_ ~ ~ 41
:> II .3.
~l~>
, 0 Z
_ C C
- . .
~ ~ ~ :;:
CI 0 :> :>
~
~
iil
1/:'
~
~
o
g
~f
~
;:'
;l
o
~
~
N'
:i;,
:;
N
'"
.;
z
c
o ~ N 0
ci ~
5
O;:"':c
~
OO~O
~t ~_ ~
o ~'
:8 ~ ...
NO
,., ~-
:;
gg~~
00 Z
00' ...
leOi
~~~~
N 'a-
;;
~g~::::
o 0 ~
,.,- ~i ~ '3-
c
c
:g~g
"'000=
II' <0- .. O'
~ ~
:;
13
~ ~ ... ..
~ :> ~ .3.
~l~>
.... 0 c
~ 1: ~ ~
o ~ ~ ;;.
~
~
W
N
~
;!
g
z'
l;
W
N
~
z'
~
~
~
Ie
z
0:
'",
:;
~
N
W
,.:
Oi
ClONO
"'cii
00
c
gg:o~
o ~ 0
0"0.- ,.,-
8:Oi ~
<;> Q 0 0
o 0 ~
o ~
~~ ~-
~~~~
~- ;t
;;
00_....
_ <;;> . "'-
II'''' &: 00_
",;~.. ;l
~~~~
-0-""- N
~- ;{
~
13
v ~ : !
> .. Ii
~l~>
.... 0 .. ..
_ c c
~ ! ~ ~
o Q > >
~
o
o
Ie
i<:
o
~'
o
~
~
o
o
o
~f
i<:
o
~
o
:;
!fj
;-
e;
~
~
~
8S0;:
o ~
~ :f
5
o ~ :c
~
0000
00.....0
o 0 ~
0......- ",'
ow ~
~
CI 000
o 0 ~
o ~
~: ~-
~ & ~ ~
",-:;;- :f
:;
~g::~
""",..-0,.,_
Z ~
~
~
~g;::s
00 0 ..0 ~~
~~ ~~ ~
:;
~
13
-;; ~ : !
~l~~
_ c c
~ ! ~ ~
c c > >
N
~
c;
o
N
~
~
~
o
,
N
o
g
'"
~'
~
~
~
N
~
~
~
o
g
i
~
o
g
.;
l;
o
'"
.;
;1!
;e
~
N'
~
~
o
~
z
;e'
::;
~
o
~
g
'3.'
;~
~
z
Z
.;
;l
o
~
~
~
o 0 0 0
o ~ ~
o ~
6f :f
os ~
~
000.0
g~"'~
~~!~ :;;
N
-
Z
.
~
0000
00 ~
O~
~ ~~
....!i2~~
~O~I"I
N~....~ N.
~ ~
;;
&gu-::c
:~::~~ ~
~
l"Io....g
~~~~
....- ~~ ::
~, ~
:;
IL
.. > '" 1!
~l~:
-;; i i
~ :: ~ ~
C Q > >
~
i }iA /;20
~
'"
is
,
N
0
0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~
Z ~ ~ ~ ~
Z ~ :: ~' g;' i it ~' ~'
~ Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ <
g g g g g 0
" ~ 0 0 0 0 8
a Q ~ !- !- 'fl.' ~{ ff !-
z ~
:;; Q ~
~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~, ~' j ~'
0 ..; ~'
:! ~ m ~ N ~
~ 0
z ~ ~ ~
< ~
~
0 Q /: /: /: /:
~ N '"
~ Q ~ C, ~ ~ ~
'3 ~ z ~' t ~ N' N' N'
< ~ ;:: N is is is
~ z 0
~ ~ ~ N- ,.; ,.; ::i ~' ~'
:! Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Q
Z ~ ;< ~ 0 0 0
~ N ~ ~ ~
< ~
~ ~ ~ ~' ~' ~
~ :! ~ ;; ~
Q ~ '3 ;;
<
z < u
~ ~
< 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~ U Q, ~ 0 ~ Q ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
< :i ,.; 0' ,.; :i N' :i ,.; :i ,.; :i
z ~ , N
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ u :; i!:
< Iii
< z
u 0 Q i(i 0 0 i(i 0 0 :;: 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ Q 0 ~ 0 0 ~
~ ~ < N 0 ~ Q ~ 0 ~
Q U >e. ;, ~ ~ ~ 0' ~' .; ~' 0' ,.;
~ Q ~ i!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.; ~ :; ~
. 1:
:;; ~
~ Q 0 i!l 0 Q 0 0 Q Q ~ 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
~ 0 0 ~, Q Q - ~ Q 0 0 0 Q ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~
< u 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ Q 0
~ ~ 0' ,.; .; .; ~ .; ,: ~ 0' N' 0' 0' ,.;
~ ;;
, ~ N ~ !:;~ ~~ :;l :;l, :;l
0 ~ 0 :;: ~, ~ -- ~ -' ~ -- ;;; ;; _.;;;
~
~ u ~ ~
= ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~
< :! u 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
< 0' ~' /:' ~' fi ~' /:' ~. /:' ~' 0' ~'
z < ~ ,
, ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~, ~,
~ :;: :;:
0
~ ~ ~
<
~ 0 0 :; N /: " ~ 0 0 0 ~ g 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0
0 0 N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ !l ~ ~ ~
~ u ~ N 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~
< ~ ~ N' N ,.; ,: ~ ,.; 'Ii ,.; i@' ,.; '8' N' '8'
~ ~ 0 ;; ~
;; ;; N N N
Z /: :;: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ 0 0 N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
< ~ ii :;: :; :;: :; :; :;
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ IC 0 ~ IC 0 ~ IC, 0 ~
~ u 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z < ~ ~' ~ ~' ~'
~ ~ N ~ ~ ~
e :;: ~ /: ;:: ;:: ~ ;:: ;::
~ :;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
< ;; ~
.
. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. ;! ~ g ~ ~
. 0 0 :;; 0 ~ :;; 0 ~ :;; 0 ~ :;; :;\ ~
. ~ u ~ N ~ 0 0, ~ N N N
. ~ ;; 0' ~- ~' :i '" ~- '" ~. ~' N' ~'
. 0 Sl ;; N
. ~ N N
. 0 i!: 0- ~- ~, ~, ~-
:; ;; ;; ;; M ;; ;;
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..; ..; ..; ..; ~ .;
.. . I l~ l~ 1.3 l~ 1.3
~ > .
,
1 ~ .. .. . . . . . ~ .. . . ~ . ~ .. . . !
> . ~ . > ~ , . > . > . . > . > .
~ >> l~ >> .. >> l~ .. >> l~ >> . .. >> 1~ ..
.. . . ! u . . . !~ .
> 0 > Q . > 0 > 0 > 0 ~ 0 >
>> ~
. , 0 c 0 c , 0 c , ~ , 0 ~ c ,
0 .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ . . .. . .. c c
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~
~ u >> ~ ~ >> u u >> u >> u
. . . . . . . . . .
0 0 > > 0 0 > > Q Q ~ > 0 0 > > 0 0 > ~ 0 Q > >
< <! ~ ~ ~ !l g
0 0 /u- J~
u < , , , ;:: ,
~ ~ ~ ~ !l I
~ 0 0 0 0
:;\ :;\ :;\ :;\ :;\
!;l
,
~
0
,
N
0
C ~
~ C
Z C
;;; = ~.
~ ffi
" 0
% =
W ~
~ ~
c
~ c
0
B i1 ffi .,;
~
" Q =
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ i
" ~
12 Q
z =
< w
~
0
W Q ~
E ~
:3 w N
~ ~ ~
~ 0
~ ~ ~
" Q =
0 12 :0 ~
Q
z Q s:
< z
0 ~ :0 ~
c " w ~
Q 12 :3 z
<
z < ~
> ~
~ 0 0 0 Q
~ 0 C =
W ~~ ~
Z 0 ~ =-
W , =
~
e ~ :;:
= =
~ %
~ 0 0 0 s:
0 0
0 W '" 0 ~
~ !<: ~ 0- ~-
C 0 w ~ =
.,; W ~ :;:
Q C
. = = .
~ .
0 0 0 .
~ 0 0 s: ~
= '" ~ 0 0
< O- N-
~ ~ ,
Q ~ , ~ 0
~ -
% ~ :;: .:=
~ = =
~
= 0 0 0 s:
0 0
< '" W ~ 0 ~-
~ ~ 0 '" ~.
0 0 , ~ ~-
C :;: :;:
0
~ = =
< .
. c :0 0 0
. ~ =
. C ~ 0
! < "- ~ N- ~-
~ 0
0 0 N
% ~ ~ =
= =
~ 0 0 0
'" ~
~ ~ ~- 10 =
~ < ~ ~ C
~ :;: ;::
~ :;: =
W ;;
~ =
I 0 0 0
~ :0 0 =
~ N
0 < .; i
;,
0 :;: ~
~ 0 ;;.
N =
=
. .
. .
-" , ~
. . I
> > .
I c 0 -"
.. . . .
. > . ,
0 u > l~ .
.. . .
> > Q >
. , ~ c c
0
'i . . . )1///
> u u
. . . 12
Q Q > > //
< ~
~ < ,
~ ~
0
0
N
Appendix D
Cash Flow Analysis
J'!4 - /.2 '3
Table 8.5 Best Case
CAS H F L 0 Y A N A L Y S I S (I NTH 0 USA NOS )
FISCAL YEAR ENDING: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,396 $0
INFLATION FACTOR 4.00% 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.32
FUND I NG REQU I RED $0 $0 SO SO SO SO S15,686 SO
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'O FROM SURPLUS $0 SO SO SO SO SO (S15,686) SO
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
NET COST SO SO SO SO SO SO (SO) SO
CAPITALIZED INTEREST (8%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D) 0
FINANCING COST 16.30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
ANNUAL BOND SALE - SEPT 2 OF SA ID FY SO SO SO SO SO SO (SO) SO
BONDS OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (8 1/2% - 25 YRS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATED PRINIPAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
PRINCIPAL SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
CALLED BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR.) 35 36 38 39 41 43 44 46
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- ----~--- -------- -----~--
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE S35 S36 S38 S39 S41 $43 $44 $46
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED S35 S36 S38 S39 $41 S43 $44 $46
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
------- ------- ------- -------
REVENUES:
125 T-OIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3) 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.) S143.00 S148.72 S154.67 S160.86 S167.29 Sl73.98 S180.94 Sl88.18
REVENUE S2,446 S2,543 S2,645 S2,751 S2,861 S2,975 S3,094 S3,218
NET REVENUES:
125 T-OIF REVENUE S2,446 S2,543 S2,645 S2,751 S2,861 S2,975 $3,094 S3,218
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%) $49 $149 S257 S374 S500 $634 S152 S282
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO $0
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX SO $0 SO SO SO SO SO SO
CAPITALIZED INTEREST SO SO SO $0 SO SO (SO) SO
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------~--~---
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE S2,494 S2,692 S2,900 S3,121 $3,355 S3,603 S3,238 S3,491
EXCESS (DEFICIT) S2,459 S2,655 S2,862 S3,082 $3,314 $3,561 $3,194 $3,445
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT) $2,459 $5,115 $7,977 $11,058 $14,373 $2,248 $5,442 ($0)
SURPLUS TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($15,686) $0 ($8,887>
TRANSFER TO BOND CALL $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0
it//) -))(
CAS H F LOW ANALYSIS ( I N THO USA NOS )
----------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
---------------._------------------------------.--------------------------------.--------------------------------------
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE $13,342 $0 $2,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INFLATION FACTOR 1.37 1.42 1.48 1.54 1.60 1.67 1.73 1.80 1.87
FUNDING REQUIRED $18,260 $0 $3,279 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS ($8,887) $0 ($3,279) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
-------- -------- -------- -------. -------- -------- -------- --------
NET COST $9,373 $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITALI2ED INTEREST (8%) 750 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0
FINANCING COST 1,528 0 (D) 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- -----.-- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
ANNUAL BOND SALE - SEPT 2 OF SAID FY $11,650 $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
BONDS OUTSTANDING 11,650 11,650 11,650 7,299 5,413 3,278 1,263 955 0
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1,888 1,138 1,138 1,138 713 529 320 123 0
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATED PRINIPAL 1,766 990 990 990 620 460 279 107 0
----.--- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
PRINCIPAL $122 $148 $179 $140 $123 $106 $90 $93 $0
CALLED BONDS 0 0 0 (4,220) (2,231) (1,991) (1,826) (448) 0
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE 11,650 11,528 11,380 6,980 4,609 2,495 564 0 0
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10% 1,165 1,165 1,165 739 541 328 126 95 0
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR. 48 50 52 54 56 58 61 63 0
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%) 0 0 0 128 67 60 55 13 0
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%) 0 29 28 29 18 13 8 3 2
-------- ----_.-. -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,291 $818 $634 $428 $197 ($2)
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED $1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,291 $818 $634 $428 $197 ($2)
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
------- -------
REVENUES:
125 T-OIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3) 17502 22032 14102 14102 11502 9508 2750 0 0
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.) $195.71 $203.53 $211.67 $220.14 $228.95 $238.11 $247.63 $257.53 $267.84
REVENUE $3,425 $4,484 $2,985 $3,104 $2,633 $2,264 $681 $0 $0
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE $3,425 $4,484 $2,985 $3,104 $2,633 $2,264 $681 $0 $0
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%) $68 $181 $60 $62 $68 $57 $20 $0 $0
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITALIZED INTEREST $770 $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
----------------------------~-----~--------------------------~-----------------------------------~-~-------------------
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE $4,262 $4,661 $3,045 $3,167 $2,688 $2,312 $698 ~ $0
/ '1/1 -j,
Table 8.5 Worst Case
CAS H F LOW A N A L Y S I S (I NTH 0 USA N D S )
FISCAL YEAR ENDING: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
--------------------------------~~--------------- -----------------------~---------------------------------------------
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,396 $0
INFLATION FACTOR 4.00% 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.32
FUNDING REQUIRED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,686 $0
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 ($15,686) $0
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
NET COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($0) $0
CAP IT All ZED INTEREST (8%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 0
FINANCING COST 16.30% 0 D 0 0 0 0 (D) D
-------- -------- -------. -------- ------..
ANNUAL BOND SALE - SEPT 2 OF SA ID FY $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 ($0) $0
BONDS OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (8 1/2% - 25 YRS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATEO PRINIPAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
PRINCIPAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CALLED BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10% D D 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR.) 35 36 38 39 41 43 44 46
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%) 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%) 0 0 D 0 D 0 D 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- -._----.
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $35 $36 $38 $39 $41 $43 $44 $46
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED $35 $36 $38 $39 $41 $43 $44 $46
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
------- ------- ------- -------
REVENUES:
125 T-DIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3) 17102 171D2 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102 17102
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.) $143.00 $148.72 $154.67 $160.86 $167.29 $173.98 $180.94 $188.18
REVENUE $2,446 $2,543 $2,645 $2,751 $2,861 $2,975 $3,094 $3,218
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE $Z,446 $2,543 $2,645 $2,751 $2,861 $2,975 $3,094 $3,218
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%) $49 $149 $257 $374 $500 $634 $152 $282
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0
CAPITALl2ED INTEREST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($0) $0
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------_.-._--
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE $2,494 $2,692 $2,90D $3,121 $3,355 $3,603 $3,238 $3,491
EXCESS (DEFICIT) $2,459 $2,655 $2,862 $3,D82 $3,314 $3,561 $3,194 $3,445
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT) $2,459 $5,115 $7,977 $11,058 $14,373 $2,248 $5,442 ($0)
SURPLUS TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($15,686) $0 ($8,887)
TRANSFER TO BOND CALL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
}'-! /! - /.2. (,
Table 8.5 ~orst Case
CAS H F L 0 ~ ANALYSIS ( I N THO USA N D S )
-----------~~--------------------------~-~--_.__.._--------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------~~------~---------~-~-------------~--------~-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE $13,342 $0 $2,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INFLATION FACTOR 1.37 1.42 1.48 1.54 1.60 1.67 1.73 1.80 1.87
FUNDING REQUIRED $18,260 $0 $3,279 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS ($8,887) $0 ($3,279) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
NET COST $9,373 $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITALIZED INTEREST (8%) 750 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0
FINANCING COST 1,528 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---~--~- ~---._~- --------
ANNUAL BONO SALE - SEPT 2 OF SAID FY $11,650 $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
BONDS OUTSTANDING 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1,888 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATEO PRINIPAL 1.766 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 990
----.--- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----~--
PRINCIPAL $122 $148 $148 $148 $148 $148 $148 $148 $148
CALLEO BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE 11,650 11,528 11,380 11,201 11,061 10,938 10,832 10.742 10,649
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10% 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR. 48 50 52 54 56 58 61 63 0
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%) 0 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
-~------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,164 $1,166 $1,169 $1,171 $1,173 $1,110
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED $1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,164 $1,166 $1,169 $1,171 $1,173 $1,110
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
------- -------
REVENUES:
125 T-DIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3) 17502 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.) $195.71 $203.53 $211.67 $220.14 $228.95 $238.11 $247.63 $257.53 $267.84
REVENUE $3,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE $3,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%) $68 $181 $60 $62 $68 $57 $20 $0 $0
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 $835 $1,111 $1,151 $1,173 $1,110
CAPITALIZED INTEREST $nO $0 ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
----------------------------------------~-----------~----_.~---~--~-------------------------_._-~_._~------------------
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE $4,262 $181 $60 $62 $68 $57 $20 $0 $0
EXCESS (DEFICIT) $2,326 $3,471 ($1,103) ($1,102) ($1,099) ($1,111) ($1,151) ($1,173) ($1,110)
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT) $2,2n $2,469 $1,366 $264 ($835) ($1,111) ($1,151) ($1,173) ($1,110)
SURPLUS TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION $0 ($3,279) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TRANSFER TO BOND CALL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
/,//}-/), 7
DEBT CDNSTRUCTIDN:
FY 93 EXPENSE
INFLATIDN FACTDR
FUNDING REQUIRED
lESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS
NET CDST
CAPITALIZED INTEREST (8%)
FINANCING CDST
ANNUAL BDND SALE - SEPT Z DF SAID FY
BDNDS OUTSTANDING
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
INTEREST DN ACCUMULATED PRINIPAL
PRINCIPAL
CALLED BDNDS
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE
EST RESERVE FUND BAL lD%
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIDN FEE (4% INFL./YR.
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%)
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (6D% AT 4%)
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TDTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED
REVENUES:
125 T-DIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3)
CDST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.)
REVENUE
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE
INTEREST DN ALL EXCESS (5D% @ 4%)
TDTAL DEVELDPED TAX
TDTAL UNDEVELDPED TAX
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
TDTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE
EXCESS (DEFICIT)
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT)
SURPLUS TRANSFERRED TD CDNSTRUCTIDN
TRANSFER TO BOND CALL
2001
CAS H F L 0 ~ A N A L Y S I S ( I NTH 0 USA NOS )
$13,342
1.37
$18,26D
($8,887)
$9,373
750
1,528
$11,65D
11,65D
1,888
1,766
$122
D
11,65D
1,165
2002
$D
11,650
1,138
990
$148
D
11,528
1,165
48
D
o
2003
$D $2,215
1.42 1.48
$D $3,279
$D ($3,279)
$D
D
D
($D)
11,650
1,138
990
$148
D
11,380
1,165
50
D
29
2004
$0
1.54
$0
$D
($D)
(0)
(0)
$D
11,65D
1,138
99D
$148
D
11,2Dl
1,165
52
D
28
2005
$D
1.6D
$D
$D
$D
o
D
$D
11,65D
1,138
99D
$148
D
11,D61
1,165
54
D
28
2006
$0
1.67
$0
$D
$D
o
D
$D
11,65D
1,138
990
$148
D
10,938
1,165
56
D
28
2007
$D
1.73
$D
$D
$D
o
D
$D
11,65D
1,138
990
$148
D
lD,832
1,165
58
D
28
2008
$D
1.80
$D
$D
$D
o
D
$D
11,65D
1,138
990
$148
D
lD,742
1,165
61
D
28
2009
$0
1.87
$0
$0
$D
D
o
$0
D
o
$D
11,65D
1,138
99D
$148
o
lD,649
1,165
63
D
28
D
o
28
$1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,164 $1,166 $1,169 $1,171 $1,173 $1,110
$1,936 $1,189 $1,162 $1,164 $1,166 $1,169 $1,171 $1,173 $1,110
------- -------
------- ------- -------
175D2 0
$195.71 $203.53
$3,425 $D
$3,425
$68
$0
$0
$770
$4,262
$0
$181
$D
$0
$0
$181
$2,326 $3,471
$2,277 $2,469
$0 ($3,279)
$0 $D
o
$211.67
$0
$0
$60
$0
$1,103
($0)
o
$22D.14
$0
$0
$62
$0
$1,102
$0
$60
o
$228.95
$0
$0
$68
$0
$1,099
$0
$62
o
$238.11
$0
$0
$57
$0
$1,111
$0
$68
o
$247.63
$0
$0
$20
$0
$1,151
$0
$57
o
$257.53
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,173
$0
$20
o
$267.84
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,110
$0
$0
$0
($1,103) ($1,102) ($1,099) ($1,111) ($1,151) ($1,173) ($1,110)
$0 ($1,102) ($2,201) ($3,312) ($1,150) ($1,173) ($1,110)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
i~;l: /;L~
$0
$0
CAS H F LOU A N A L Y S I S ( I N THO USA N D S )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INFLATION FACTOR 1.95 2.03 2.11 2.19 2.28 2.37 2.46 2.56 2.67
FUNDING REQUIRED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
---.-.-- ---_.--- ......-- ..--.--- -------- -------- --------- ------.-- ...--_.-.
NET COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITALIZEO INTEREST (8%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FINANCING COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
ANNUAL BOND SALE - SEPT 2 OF SAID FY SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
BONOS OUTSTANDING 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650 11,650
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138 1,138
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATED PRINIPAL 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 990
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
PRINCIPAL S148 S148 S148 S148 S148 S148 S148 S148 S148
CALLED BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649 10,649
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10% 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE Sl,l10 $1,110 $1,110 S),110 Sl,110 Sl,l10 Sl,l10 Sl,l10 Sl,l10
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED Sl,11D Sl,110 Sl,l10 S1,110 Sl,110 Sl,l10 $1,110 $1,110 Sl,l10
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
REVENUES:
125 T-DIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.) S278.55 S289.69 S301.28 S313.33 S325.86 S338.9D S352.45 S366.55 S381. 21
REVENUE SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%) SO S7 S8 S8 S9 S9 S9 S10 S10
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX S1,110 S1,103 Sl,103 Sl,102 Sl,102 Sl,101 Sl,101 Sl,101 Sl,100
CAP IT All ZED INTEREST SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE SO S7 sa S8 S9 S9 S9 S10 S10
EXCESS (DEFICIT) (Sl,l10) (Sl,103) (S1,103) (S1,102) (S1,102) (Sl,101) (Sl,101) (S1,101) (Sl,100)
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT) (Sl,l10) (Sl,103) (S1,102) ($1,102) (S1,102) (Sl,101) (Sl,101) (Sl,100) (Sl,100)
I VA -/ c2 ~I
CAS H F LOW A N A L Y S I S (I NTH 0 USA NOS )
DEBT CONSTRUCTION:
FY 93 EXPENSE
INFLATION FACTOR
FUNDING REQUIRED
LESS ACCUM REVENUE TRF'D FROM SURPLUS
NET COST
CAPITALIZED INTEREST (8%)
FINANCING COST
ANNUAL BOND SALE - SEPT 2 OF SAID FY
BONDS OUTSTANDING
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
INTEREST ON ACCUMULATED PRINIPAL
PRINCIPAL
CALLED BONDS
ACCUMULATED PRINCIPAL BALANCE
EST RESERVE FUND BAL 10%
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEE (4% INFL./YR.
PREPAYMENT PENALTY (3%)
LESS RESERVE FUND INTEREST (60% AT 4%)
NET ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL ANNUAL CASH REQUIRED
REVENUES:
125 T-DIF
TRIPS/YEAR (TABLE 8.3)
COST PER TRIP (INC @ 4% PER YR.)
REVENUE
NET REVENUES:
125 T-DIF REVENUE
INTEREST ON ALL EXCESS (50% @ 4%)
TOTAL DEVELOPED TAX
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED TAX
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
RESERVE FUND TRANSFER
TOTAL TAX AND FEE REVENUE
EXCESS (DEFICIT)
ACCUMULATED EXCESS (DEFICIT)
SURPLUS TRANSFERRED TO CONSTRUCTION
TRANSFER TO BOND CALL
2019
$0
2.77
$0
$0
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
$1,110
$1,110
o
$396.46
$0
$0
$11
$0
$1,099
$0
2020
$0
2.88
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
o
o
28
$1,211
$1,211
o
$412.32
$0
$0
$11
$0
$1,199
$0
$12
2021
$0
3.00
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
101
o
28
$1,215
$1,215
o
$428.81
$0
$0
$8
$0
$1,207
$0
$12
2022
$0
3.12
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
105
o
28
$1,220
$1,220
o
$445_97
$0
$0
$4
$0
$1,215
$0
$9
2023
$0
3.24
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
109
o
28
$1,224
$1,224
o
$463.81
$0
$0
($0)
$0
$1,223
$0
$5
2024
$0
3.37
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
114
o
28
118
o
28
2025
$0
3_51
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
$1,233
$1,233
o
$501.65
$0
$0
($10)
$0
$1,242
$0
2026
$0
3.65
$0
$0
$0
o
o
$0
o
o
$1,228
$1,228
o
$482.36
$0
$0
($5)
$0
$1,232
$0
$1
($4)
$0
11,650
1,138
990
$148
o
10,649
1,165
123
o
28
o
o
28
$1,110
$1,110
o
$521.72
$0
$0
($15)
$0
$1,124
$0
($9)
($14)
($1,099) ($1,199) ($1,207) ($1,215) ($1,223) ($1,232) ($1,242) ($1,124)
($1,099) ($1,199) ($1,207) ($1,215) ($1,223) ($1,232) ($1,242) ($1,124)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
F!4//JiJ
$0
$0
$0
$0
Appendix E
Cost Estimates
Jt-j/J --- (3/
J 7-Dec-92
HNTB
/Ljll ~/3;2
Page 1 of 10
Table 8.6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Descri tion Unit Unit Cost Total
VIII. Tern ora Construction:
A. Construction Stakin 1.25 mile $65.000 I $81,250 I
B. Construction Area Si mile $6,000 $7,500
If $15.00 $22,500
$111,250
$729,690
$72,969
$109,454
$912,113
Total/Mile $729,690
Total/Lane Mile $364 845
I. Earthwork:
A. Clearin & Grubbin 0.26. mile $30,000 $7,800
B. Roadwa Excavation 1 $10.00 $17,000 'I
1,700 I c
, I
C. Excess Haul 500 : cy $7.50 : $3,750
0.1 acres $2,050.00 . $2051
0 sf $1.25 $0'1
"
Subtotal $28,755
mile $20,000 $5,235
If $140 $14,000
If $100 I $95,000
Subtotal $114,235
$2.75 I $57,475
$750
$58,225
If $11.00 I $0
Subtotal $0
1
17-Dec-92
HNTB
P--!A- /3)
Page 2 of 10
Descri tion
V. Structures:
I VII. Miscellaneous Items:
I A. Metal Beam Guardrail
B. Chain Link Fence
C. Stri in
D. Pavement Markers
1 VIII. Temporary Coostruction:
A. Construction Stakin
B. Construction Area Si ns
Table 8.6
In terim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Unit
Unit Cost
sf
Is
sf
Subtotal
$15.00
$500,000
$80
$54,000
$250,000
Is
Is
,
0: If
o! If
I
5,400 I If
117 : ea
f
0.26 j mile
Subtotal
0.26 mile
I mile
0.26,
If
$18.35
$10.80
$1.75
$3.00
$16,000
$65,000
$6,000 '
$15.00
I
I
I
I
II * This segment will be financed bv San Diego County
Total/Mile
Total/Lane Mile
17-Dec-92
HNTB
Jtj413~
Total
"
$0':
$500,000 :!
II
$2,016,000 :i
$2.516,0001
",
I,
,
$0 I
:~:I
$0
$0
$9,450 I
$351 !
$4,160
$13,961
$16,900
$1,560
$14,250
$32,710
$2,763,886
$276,389
,
$414,583'
I
$3,454,857
$13,287,913
$6 643 956
I
Page 3 of 10
Table 8.6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Qty. I Unit Unit Cost Tota]
San Miguel Rd. (Bonita Ave. to Proctor VaUey Rd.)
0.90 mile $30.000 1 $27,000
3.500 cy $10.00 $35.000
700 cy $7.50 $5.250
acres $2,050.00 1 $410
sf $1.25 $0.
I
Subtotal $67,660 .
0.90 mile $100,000 $90,000 II
]f $140 $28,000 '
i
]f $825 $01,
$118,000
sf $2.75 $104.500
sf $0.50 $5,250
$104,500
If $11.00 $0
Subtotal $0
sf $15.00 $15,000
Subtotal $15,000
,
]s $54,000 ' $0
]s $250,000 I $250.000 I
Subtotal $250,000
]f $18.35 : $0
Description
I. Earthwork:
B. Roadway Excavation
C. Excess Hau]
D. Erosion Control
II. Draina e:
A. Roadwa Drainage
E. Cross Draina e - RCP
V. Structures:
Walls
B. Chain Link Fence
D. Pavement Markers
] 7-Dec-92
HNTB
,;-1/J / /'J.5
/ -//7 ,
Page 4 of 10
Descri tion
VIII. Tern orar Construction:
A. Construction Stakin
Table 8,6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Unit
ns
0.90 mile
0.90 mile
If
Total/Mile
Total/Lane Mile
Proctor VaUey Rd, (SR 125 to San Mignel Rd,)
J. Earthwork & Removal:
A. Clearin & Grubbin
B. Roadway Excavation
C. Excess Haul
D. Erosion Control
mile
cy
cy
acres
sf
Subtotal
n. Draina e:
A. Roadwa
B. Cross Drainage - RCP
C. Concrete Box Culvert
2.00 mile
500 If
0: If
Subtotal
sf
sf
Subtotal
If
Subtotal
0: sf
Subtotal
V. Structures:
17-Dec-n
HNTB
Jl-j/J '/}b
Unit Cost
$65,000
$6,000
$15.00 '
$30,000
$2.00.
$7.50
$2,050.00
$1.25
$100,000
$]40 i
$8251
$3.25
$0.50
$]1.00
$]5.00 ;
Total
$58,500
$5,400
$22,500
$86,400
$694,570 ,
$69,457'
i
$]04,]86
$868,213
$964,681
$482 340
:;
,
$60,000 I'
$920,000
$],200,000
$24,600
$0
$2,204,600 :'
.-----J!
"
$200,000 'i
$70,000
$0
$270,000
$ ],561,560 II
"
$19,800"
$1,581,360 il
$0
i'
$O'i
"
,
$0 I
$0 I
Page 5 of 10
Table 8.6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Descri tion Qt. Unit Unit Cost Total
0: ]s $54.000 I $0
0 Is $200,000 $0
Subtotal $0 I
,
,
A. Metal Beam Guardrail 0 If $18.35 . $0
B. Chain Link Fence 0 If $10.80 ! I
$01
,
C. Stri in 63,360 If $1.75' $110,880 j.
D. Pavement Markers 880 ea $3.00 $2,640 'I
,
mile $16,000 i $32,000 '
Subtotal $145,520 I
A. Construction Stakin 2.00 mile $65,000 $130,000
'I
B. Construction Area Si ns 2.00 mile $6,000 $12,000 I
i $22 500 i'
If $15.00 i , 1
I'
$164,500 ,I
$4,365,980 I
$436,5981
$654,89711
$5,457,4751
Total/Mile $2,728,73811
Total/Lane Mile $1 364,36911
SR 125 (East Lake Pkwy. to Proctor Valley Rd.) I
J. Earthwork: ,I
, I
1.54' mile $30,000 $46,200
B. Roadway Excavation 355,000 I cy $2.00 $710,000
C. Excess Haul 125,000 I c $7.50 $937,500
1.5 , acres $2,050.00 $3,075
Subtotal $1,696.775 ,
1
I
1.54 mile $100,000 $154,000 ,
B. Cross Draina e - RCP 500 If $140 $70.000 Ii
0 If $825 $0 ,;
17 -Dec-92
HNTB
/1/1 //J?
Page 6 of 10
Table 8.6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Descri tion Ot. Unit Unit Cost Total
III. A.C. Pavin
sf $3.25 ; $1,374,172
sf $0.50, $0
Subtotal $1,374,172
If $11.00 $0
Subtotal $0
sf $15.00 I $0
Subtotal $0
I
Is I $01
$54,000 ,
Is $200,000 I $0
Subtotal $0
VII. Miscellaneous Items:
A. Metal Beam Guardrail 1,000 If $18.35 $18,350
B. Chain Link Fence 0 If $10.80 $0,
C. Stri in 34,558 If $1.75 $60,4 77
D. Pavement Markers 1,016 ea $3.00
VIII. Temporary Construction:
A. Construction Staking
B. Construction Area Si os
1.54
1.54
17-Doo-92
mile
mile
$65,000
$6,000
$15.00
$100,100
If
Sections I - VIII
$3,513,052
$351,305
$526,958 ,
$4,391,315
$2,851,503
"
$950,501 i
Contingency (15%)
To/al
To/aI/Mile
To/aI/Lane Mile
HNTB
)~Il ~/36
Page 7 of 10
17-Dec-92
HNTB
Subtotal
$37,696 i
Page 8 of 10
Ji/) ~/31
Table 8.6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Qty.
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
VIII. Temporary Construction:
A. Construction Stakin
0.64
mile
If
$65.000
$6,000
$15.00
$41,600
$3,840
$12,000
$57,440
$1,549,414
$154,941
$232,412
$1,936,767
$3,026,199
$756550
mile
Total/Mile
TotallLane Mile
East Orange Avenne (From East DIF Bonndary to East Lake Pkwy.)
I. Earthwork:
A. Clearing & Grubbin 3.25 mile $30,000 i $97.500
B. Roadwa Excavation 750,000 c $2.00 $1,500,000
C. Excess Haul 265,000 cy $7.50 $1,987,500
D. Erosion Control 2.0 acres $2,050.00 $4,100
Subtotal
B. Cross Draina e - RCP 750 If $140 $105,000
C. 01 If $825 $0
Subtotal $430,000
sf $3.25 $3,234,660
If
Subtotal
,
$11.00
17-Dec-92
HNTB
/i/J //1-/0
Page 9 of 10
C. Stri ing
Pavement Markers
Table 8,6
Interim SR 125
Construction Cost Estimate
Qt, Unit Unit Cost Total
Is $54,000 $0
Is $200,000 i $0
$0,
I
0 If $18.35 , $0
0 If $10.80 $0
If $1.75 $135,135
ea $3.00 $8,580
mile $16,000 $52,000
Subtotal $195,715
mile $65,000 $211 ,250
I
mile $6,000 $19,500 i
If $15.00 $12,000 !
$242,750 '
$7,692,225 :
I
$769,223 '
$1,153,834
$9,615,281
Total/Mile $2,958,548
Total/Lane Mile $739 637
I
I
I
Descri tion
VI. Utilit Ad'ustments:
A. A uaduct Encasement
B. Water, Sewer, Power
VII. Miscellaneous Items:
A. Metal Beam Guardrail
B. Chain Link Fence
VIII. Tern orary Construction:
A. Construction Stakin
B. Construction Area Si os
17-Dec-92
HNTB / fA / / L//
Pooe 10 of 10
Table 8.7
Interim SR 125 At-Grade Intersection
Construction Cost Estimate
Descri tion
Unit Cost
Unit
Table 8.7
Descri tion
Sr S4 & Sweetwater Rei.
Removal of Existing Pavement
Roadway Excavation
A.C. Pavin ase
PCC Curb & Gutter
Interim SR 125 At-Grade Intersection
Construction Cost Estimate
Unit
Unit Cost
o
50
o
100
I
sf
$1.25
$10.00
$3.25
$11.00
$30,000
cy
sf
If
Is
,,~~, <<s~~~~}t>'~~:@~HflifiiliB~:;'~'0~ Subtotal
'::'::,""'H>; ..., .;>'~~$'~':::~' ,,::::,,~>;,~'~ ~s ::~
~.r}~::: .. ::W:-:s::::i' :::~~t1~:htt.~:::':;: ~~ :i' N~':: ~~ .. ~ ,-:' ,:::
::S4::;r&':.{~~~~t~f~d~~~~~Y::f~~..f&~h'~,~~' ,c., Mobilization (10%)
:;;.':,} , :::,-:::.'s...':.~:::::~';'~$::: .;..;.~.;::.....:. -:..' ';;" ,.\~.
t.,,:*}~;t~~\n~~~tr}ft4\~,"~;::+.. ..~'~<.. C' (15%)
:;-::W~";d.r:.{{t.~-:"\~'i,~f::::;:-t$::.-: -""::h< ~\ ,,,t' ontmgency
/tt%tt@:~MstJHWdn~tt~~Ad:~tJ~~!:t1t~~~t1~~~~:{H~:ili~]id~:;::: Total
Sweetwater Rd. & Bonita Rd.
Removal of Existin Pavement 3,000 sf
Roadway Excavation 250 cy
A.C. PavingIBase 4,000 sf
PeC Curb & Gutter 0 If
Traffic Signal Modification I Is
~~~~::~:::
$1.25
$10.00
$3.25
$1\.00
$30,000
Bonita Rd. & San Mi uel
Removal of Existing Pavement
Roadwa Excavation
A.C. PavingIBase
PCC Curb & Gutter
3,000 cy $1.25
250 c $10.00
4,000 sf $3.25
0 If $11.00
Is $30,000
Subtotal
Mobilization (10%)
Contingency (15%)
Total
08-Mav-93
/1/1- /'-I:J-
HNTB
Total
Total
$0
$500
$0
$1.100
$30,000
$31,600
$3,160
$4,740
$39,500
$3.750
$2.500
$13,000
$0
$30,000
$49.250
$4,925
$7,388
$61,563
$3,750
$2,500
$13,000
$0
$30,000
$49.250
$4.925
$7,388
$61,563
Page I of2
Table 8.7
Interim SR 125 At-Grade Intersection
Descri tion
San Mi el Rd. & Proctor Valley Rd.
Removal of Existing Pavement
Roadwa Excavation
A.C. Pavin ase
PCC Curb & Gutter
Unit
Unit Cost
0 cy $1.25
50 cy $10.00
0 sf $3.25
0 If $11.00
Is $100.000
Subtotal
Mobilization (10%)
Contingency (15%)
Total
Proctor Valley Rd. & SR 125
Roadwa Excavation 500
A.C. PavingIBase 3,000
PCC Curb & Gutter 0
Traffic Signal I
-
c
sf
If
Is
Subtotal
Mobilization (10%)
Contingency (15%)
Total
SR 125 & East Lake Pkwy.
Roadwa Excavation
A.C. PavingIBase
PCC Cnrb & Gutter
Traffic Signal
.....~:;;:;
East Oran eAve. & East Lake Pkwy.
Roadway Excavation
A.C. PavingIBase
PCC Curb & Gutter
Traffic Signal
500
5,000
o
1
08-May-93
500
100
o
$10.00
$3.25
$11.00
$100,000
c $10.00
sf $3.25
If $11.00
Is $100.000
cy
sf
If
Is
Subtotal
Mobilization (10%)
Contingency (15%)
Total
HNfB
/ r/-;
$10.00
$3.25
$11.00
$100,000
/ij
Total
$0
$500
$0
$0
$100,000
$100,500
$10,050
$15,075
$125,625
$5,000
$9,750
$0
$100,000
$114,750
$11,475
$17,213
$143,438
$5,000
$325
$0
$100,000
$105,325
$10,533
$15,799
$131,656
$5,000
$16,250
$0
$100,000
$121,250
$12,125
$18,188
$151 63
Pa~e 2 of2
Section 9
REFERENCES
Ii/?- /t!i
IntPrim ~tl=ltP: Rontp: 1''\ . Rp:fprP.nl"pl>:
References
1. California Transportation Ventures, Inc., "San Diego Expressway (State Route 125) State
of California Toll Revenue Transportation Project" - Franchise Agreement, January 1991.
2. California Transportation Ventures, Inc., "San Diego Expressway (State Route 125) State
of California Toll Revenue Transportation Project" - Technical Proposal, August 1990.
3. California Transportation Ventures, Inc., "San Diego Expressway: State Route 125 Project
Description and Economic Analysis", February 1991.
4. Chula Vista, City of, "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets", November 19,
1990.
5. Chu1a Vista, City of, "General Plan", July 11, 1989.
6. Chu1a Vista, City of, "Growth Management Program", April 23, 1991.
7. Chu1a Vista, City of, "Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight
Commission", November 17, 1987; First Revision August 1989; Second Revision April-
May 1991.
8. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., "Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-02)", December 1991.
9. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., "Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-03)",
December 1991.
10. Otay Ranch Project Team, The, "Development Around Lower Otay Lake Reservoir" Draft
Copy, November 12, 1991.
11. Tierra Planning and Design, Inc., "San Miguel Ranch Draft General Development Plan",
December 16, 1991.
12. Willdan Associates, "Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan", January 1991.
13. California Department of Transportation, Materials Laboratory - District 11, "Geotechnical
Report for an Environmental Investigation, 11-SD-125, P.M. 0.0/11.2, State Route 905
to State Route 54, 11221 - 046140", October I, 1990, Revised October 22, 1990.
117 Iv!./! -/ L/~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item /1./ (J
Meeting Date 7/27/93
ITEM TITLE: Report on Development Forecast and Development Monitoring Policies
,,-;',/ /,/
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ;;;tt!-
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~~Y) (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
In conjunction with the preparation of the Interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study, the Planning
Department staff has worked with the Public Works Department and City Manager's office to
review and update certain components of the City's Growth Management Program. This update
has included the development of a revised forecasting methodology for mid-range (5 to 7 year)
development forecasts, which are used in the annual evaluation of threshold compliance, as well
as in the evaluation of cumulative impacts of proposed development projects, and the scheduling
of public facilities which are needed to serve new development. In addition, staff has prepared
proposed policies regarding development monitoring, which would improve the City's ability to
oversee the status of development activity, and ensure that public facilities are constructed prior
to need. The following report describes the revised forecasting methods, and includes
recommended policies regarding development monitoring.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive this report, and direct
staff to prepare a final Council policy regarding development monitoring procedures, for
consideration in conjunction with final action on the Interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study
and related items.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff made a presentation on this item
to the Planning Commission on February 17, 1993 in a workshop setting; no formal action was
requested of the Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Mid-Range Develooment Forecast
The Planning Department annually prepares a short-range (12 to 18 month) and mid-range (5-7
year) residential development forecast for Chula Vista, both of which are used in the preparation
of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's annual report on compliance with the City's
threshold standards. In conjunction with developing the mid-range forecast for the 1992 GMOC
report, the Planning Department worked with SANDAG staff to develop a revised forecasting
methodology, which is consistent with SANDAG's mid-range and long-range (year 2015) growth
forecasts for the San Diego Region. This methodology produces both a "high end" and "low
end" forecast, based on varying assumptions regarding the relationship between Chula Vista's
/L/fj--J
Page 2, Item J'I!J
Meeting Date 7/27/93
rate of growth and that of the region. Further details regarding this methodology are contained
on pages 3 through 5 of the attached report, entitled "City of Chula Vista Planning Department
Annual Residential Development Forecast. "
The results of the mid-range forecast indicate that Chula Vista will experience an average annual
growth rate of 1,179 to 1,388 dwelling units per year over the next seven years. This forecast
is consistent with the assumptions in the Interim SR-125 study, which assumed an average of
1,300 dwelling units per year over the study period.
Proposed Development Monitoring Policies
As noted above, the City already closely monitors development activity on an annual basis
through its annual Growth Management Oversight Commission report. However, because of
the long lead times needed for the planning and financing of major infrastructure such as the
interim SR-125 facility, it will become increasingly important to evaluate the phasing of new
development and the timing of major capital improvement projects to make sure that facilities
will be available when needed.
The City has already adopted policies pertaining to development phasing and monitoring as part
of its Growth Management Program and implementing ordinance. The following policies
regarding development phasing are contained in the City's Growth Management Program (ref.
"Growth Management Program," pp.4-4 to 4-5):
1. Phasing of transportation facilities shall be the major determinant of overall public
facility and development phasing;
2. Other public facilities shall be phased in concert with the phasing of new roadways;
3. Based on phasing of development which is consistent with an adopted Transportation
Phasing Plan, and is also consistent with all other public facility phasing plans or
development allocation plans, the City shall adopt a 5 to 7 year "development phasing
forecast; "
4. The adopted "development phasing forecast" shall be used as baseline information in
evaluation of new development proposals, to evaluate the cumulative impact on public
facilities;
5. The adopted "development phasing forecast" shall be used in the preparation of the City's
Capital Improvement Program, and shall be forwarded to outside agencies and districts
for facility planning purposes.
Jl/8"~
Page 3, Item 1'18
Meeting Date 7/27/93
In consideration of the existing growth management policies cited above, staff has concluded
that, in conjunction with action on an Interim SR-125 Financing Plan, it would be useful to
establish additional policies and procedures dealing with the monitoring of new development.
The purpose for adding these policies is to further define how the City will evaluate the status
of development approvals in forecasting the timing and phasing of new development, and how
this information should be used in updating public facility plans. The proposed "development
monitoring policies" are as follows:
1) In addition to the annual mid-range forecast, the Planning Department shall also prepare
and maintain a map and data base identifying all residential and non-residential projects
for which final maps have been recorded, as well as projects with approved development
agreements, and projects for which assessment district financing for major public
facilities has been established.
2) Future updates of the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan shall take into
consideration all projects meeting the criteria listed in Policy #1 above, and will identify
all Circulation Element roadway improvements needed to support this level of
development, along with financing requirements.
3) As future requests for final map recordation, development agreements, or assessment
district financing are received, they will be evaluated to determine what additional
roadway improvement needs they will generate, in relation to the current Transportation
Phasing Plan, and the developer will be required to demonstrate that such additional
improvements can be financed and constructed prior to their need.
4) Similar development monitoring and evaluation will occur for other public facilities and
growth management factors (such as water conservation and air quality improvement)
covered in the City's Growth Management Program to ensure that all other public facility
and growth management considerations are taken into account.
The policies outlined above are consistent with the City's adopted Growth Management Program,
and are in addition to monitoring and evaluation requirements that are already in effect. These
additional measures are intended to ensure that the City, other service providers (e.g., school
districts and water districts) and developers become aware at the earliest possible time of any
potential facility needs that will be required in order to maintain adopted threshold standards.
We would periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, and if necessary, suggest
other monitoring or development phasing controls as warranted.
FISCAL IMPACT: Additional staff time would be required to implement monitoring activities
described above. However, costs of these activities are covered through the City's development
impact fee programs.
([5Idpfp.,!!)
JI/O"J I/tfb/jo
2)
3)
4)
5)
ATTACHMENT C
TO 1992
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT
CXTY OF CHOLA VXSTA PLAHNXNG DEPARTKENT
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
JANUARY 111113
Proaram Overview
1n accordance with the City'S Growth Management Program the
Planning Department is pleased to release the annual 12- to
18-month and 5- to 7-year residential development forecasts and
accompanying project location map. Together, this information
addresses those projects likely to reach the construction and/or
completion phase within the respective forecast time frames
beginning July 1992. The information, as in the past, is separated
according to the two water districts, Sweetwater Authority and Otay
Municipal, for the purpose of comparison to Otay's Water Allocation
Program.
This forecast is intended to assist the City and other key
agencies, such as school and water districts, in formulating and
coordinating short- and long-range capital improvement and facility
financing plans. An evaluation by these agencies as to their
ability to accommodate the forecasted growth will be forwarded to
the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) for their use in
determining compliance with each of the City'S adopted threshold
standards (i.e.,traffic, sewer, schools, etc.).
.
I.
The City is now in its fourth year of preparing its residential
development forecasts and is pleased to report on a revised mid-
range (5-7 year) forecasting methodology endorsed by SANDAG staff
and consistent with the draft Series 8 regional forecast model.
The revised forecast was developed jointly by staff from the
Planning Department and SANDAG. Ultimately the Department's goal
is to develop a forecasting model which the city can use on an
ongoing basis. While the application and results of this forecast
will be described in greater detail later in the report, it should
be noted that the revised approach also incorporates a "high-low"
forecast range similar to that used in the. 12-18 month forecast.
12- to IS-Month Forecast
In order to provide the most accurate forecast reasonably possible,
staff conducted a five-part research process which included:
1)
the preparation and analysis of a current project status sheet
showing where different proposals are in the development
approval process;
a survey of individual developer's expected construction
schedules;
a comparative analysis of the Otay Water District Allocation
Program, as it currently applies to the eastern territories;
a crOSS-Checking of the above information as to the logical
t;ming of development; and
a ~eview of past forecast performance, economic ~rends and
historic development activity.
1l/[J-7
\
.
C.V. Forecast
-2-.
January 19, 1993
In response to the ongoing recession and current economic climate,
two sets of forec~st figures consisting of a range with a high end
and low end are included in this forecast. The hig~ end forecast,
as mentioned earlier and indicated in Figures lA and lB, reflects
each developer's anticipated construction schedules and includes a
slight downward adjustment in order to maintain consistency with
the mid-range forecast. As the data shows, 1.264 dwelling units
are expected to be permitted for construction and 1.629 dwelling
units are expected to reach occupancy over the next 18 months. The
low end forecast is based on an 24-month trend analysis of prior
construction activity (calendar years 1991 and 1992). This time
frame was chosen as it best represents an issuance/occupancy
estimate utilizing full, past and present calendar year permit
cycles. As such, the low end forecast. projects 1.000 permit
issuances and 1. 050 housing finals over the same period. No
project specific forecast tables were prepared for the low end
estimate. Taken together, the forecast range reflects the
uncertainty in the timing of development and in the amount of
construction activity that may take place.
The Planning Department recommends that threshold compliance
evaluations be conducted against the high end forecast figures, as
they represent a maximum projected impact to public facilities.
However, recognition should also be given to the low end range of
the forecast, as actual construction activity during the first six
months of this forecast reflects construction activity levels lower
than normal.
It should be noted that local economists are predicting a modest
increase in housing unit authorizations on a Countywide basis
during 1993, as compared to 1992 levels. Therefore, the final
result for Chula Vista will most likely fall somewhat above the low
end range, if these forecasts are accurate.
Application of the project status sheet (see Figures 2A and 2B) is
based on the assumption that a project shown in the development
pipeline will reach construction and/or completion within the 12-18
month time frame. Under normal city processing time frames, those
projects with units that have not progressed to the Tentative Map
level of approval are not expected to reach the construction phase
during the 18-month forecast time frame. As such, they are listed
as informational data only and are more fully considered in the
City's mid-range 5-7 year forecast.
Included with the 12- to 18-month residential forecast is a current
listing of commercial and industr.ial projects and their status
relative to the development approval process (see Figure 3). A 12-
month analysis of non-residential construction activity indicates
that approximately 433,000 square feet of commercial, industrial
and office construction occurred during the period July 1991
19/),8'
.
.
C.V. Forecast
-3-
January 19, 1993
through June 1992. For FY 1990-91, this figure was approximately
377,000 square feet.
For informational purposes, a City bf Chula Vista historic housing
and population chart has been included (see Figure 4).
1991-1992 Forecast Comnarison
As a means of illustrating external, influences on forecast
accuracy, including construction lending, housing demand and the
continuing effects of a prolonged recession, the following provides
an overview and analysis of actual residential construction
activity relative to the first twelve months of the previously
submitted forecast.
12 MONTH FORECAST COMPARISON
JULY 1991 to JUNE 1992 (dwelling units)
.
\
Otay Sweetwater City Total
Issue Final Issue Final Issue Final
Forecast 1106 1035 227 226 1333 1261
Total Activity 589 536 137 74 726 610
Difference 517 499 90 152 607 651
, Difference 46 48 40 67 45 51
As the table above shows, actual permit issuances and occupancy
levels were about half of what the high end forecast projected for
this period.
An analysis of the drought and the limiting of building permits as
a result of the otay Water District Allocation Program does not
appear to have been a factor in the amount of development that
actually took place, as each developer participating in the program
received 100\ of his requested allocation during this period.
Mid-Ranae 5- to 7-Year DeveloDment Forecast
As mentioned earlier, a new mid-range forecasting methodology,
consistent with the SANDAG draft Series 8 'forecast model, has been
developed for use in this forecast. The decision to modify the
City's mid-range forecast methodology is due to the City's desire
to further improve its forecasting methodology consistent with the
regional and subregional models, and to allow for easier and more
consistent updates of these forecasts. In doing so, the same
assumptions utilized in the Series 8 forecast for projecting future
growth, and development in the region are applied locally to the
City's forecast. These assumptions include, but are not limited
to, population trends, economic trends, and infrastructure needs.
,
)J/O-9
C.V. Forecast
-4-
January 19, 1993
Related to infrastructure needs, the regional model also considers
the development potential of all lands with remaining development
capacity. Because of this, local planning efforts, such as those
related to public facility planning, will benefit from this
forecast being linked to the regional forecast, as it provides the
City the ability to consider the impact of all projects within and
adjacent to its current planning area. As such, the mid-range
forecast may be used to demonstrate compliance with the SR-125
facility phasing and financing plan. Therefore, the results of
this revised approach will more accurately enable the City to
anticipate public facility needs so that the preplanning necessary
for such development can be arranged by the development community
in concert with the policies of the City and other affected
government agencies.
Two sets of forecast figures consisting of a range with a high end
and a low end are included in this forecast. Both forecasts are
based on the same assumption that a city generated "capture rate"
can be effectively used to predict the amount of future growth when
applied to SANDAG's annualized Series 8 forecast. The term
"capture rate" is best defined as a jurisdiction's annual building
activity represented as a percentage of the region's total building
acti vi ty in the same year. When averaged over a number of years in
which both high and low growth cycles have occurred, a City's long-
term or historical capture rate may be used as a general indicator
to test the reasonableness of the rate selected. In conducting a
12-year, regional share analysis of actual construction activity
(1980-1992), the Planning Department was able to determine its
current and historical capture rates. The results of this
analysis, as indicated in Figure 5, show the City's 1992 year-end
capture rate at 5.31 percent of the region'S total and its historic
rate to be 5.39 percent.
As a result of this analysis and discussions with SANDAG staff, it
was determined that the low end range of the forecast should be
based on an annual rate of growth equal to its historic capture
rate (5.39') when averaged over the forecast time frame (1992-
2000), beginning with its 1992 rate.
Recognizing that additional development capacity may become
available by 1995 due to the probable annexation of otay Ranch, the
Planning Department and SANDAG developed a second forecast (the
high end forecast) which considered Chula Vista's Series 8 sphere
capacity relative to the region's capacity in 2015. In assuming
that the total buildout capacity of the western parcel would be
available by 2015, and adding this capacity to the City's sphere
capacity, staff was able to determine the annual percent increase
in the 'City's capture rate (+0.05') to be applied to the low end
forecast's rate of projected growth commencing in 1995.
.
\
I'll!> .../ ()
.'
C.V. Forecast
-5-
January 19, 1993
As shown on Fiqure 5, a long-term growth rate ranging from
approximately 1.17.9 to 1.388 dwelling units per year may be
expected to reach occupancy over the forecast's 7-year time frame.
It should be noted, however, that this projection is a city-wide
projection and approximately 10-15 percent of this total is
attributable to growth and in-fill occurring in the Sweetwater
District.
Given this range, the Planning Department recommends that long-
range public facility needs assessments'be conducted against the
high end range of this forecast.
(dI..'_92,rpl)
--
1'1(3'/1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT THRESHOLDS
12-18 MONTH DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
'.PROJECT LOCATION MAP
1'..
: ~
1,.Lr
o ..
'.
r..-.. I
!
--~._,
"-
~
": "
~~:, (
DIego,
,
.
\,~
.. '<...,.,
t
,
.
....
t
,
......
MAJOR oeveLO"MENT "ROJECTS
. ...,., LO" CAli""
. ...,.... 'I!"'" .W'
a '."u.' , __U/lMOM"
. "'In..., . -n.t ..n....
. .", P.LO.... .ITA fll
, ....CNO Dill MY I"" I
. "AIfCNO Del." IPI .
. IUT eM.. I
t IAL T c.". .....
I ......0. .
. Tt:U..APM CAIitYOII
L WOODe"llT IOUfMWlITI...
. WOOocR'1T n""l IIOW,
I.-ooa,
-
.-?
,
I.. WAntI ..fillet ~
0",O"CTlI"ItOIIIIINltT L.'"
-"'"-
ern' cw ctIUI.A .... "-.... ."'.-AOYAtlCI! tH'I. t'-tl-H c.....
.......
"-
~
,
~
o'
,
CNUlA 'ISTA . OTAT OISTRICT
12.18 MONT" HOUSING UNIT FORECAST
JUlY 1992 . DECEM8ER 1993
1..........................,........................===.===)....===.==...======.======.=..=1...=...........................,.........-----..-1
I I JUlY - DECEMIIER 1992 JANUART . JUNE 1993 JUlT . OECEM8ER 1993 118 _T" FORECAST I
MAP I I 'SSUE FINAL ISSUE FINAL ISSUE FINAL I TOTAL TOTAL 1
10 I PROJECT I"F 1 SF I "F I SF "F I SF 1 "F I SF "F 1 SF 1 "F I SF 1 ISSUED I FINALEDI
... ..........................1....... .......1....=== .-.=... .======1....==. ...===: .....ss a...... ....... ....... ....... ........ ........1
A _ITA LONG CANTON I I 4 4 7 0 15 I
I IRE"" TERRA ROYA I 24 11 6 40 25 22 40 30 15 105 9111
C EASTLAKE I "HlllS/SHllIIES" - I 2 6 0 I I
0 EASTlAKE II "GREENS" n 291 67 60 33 50 30 92 33 50 57 13 221 307 I
E EAST PAlONAR ESTATES I 7 7 6 6 13 131
. R.O.R. SPA I 24 I 76 71 40 62 60 105 40 70 60 90 236 4621
G R.O.R. SPA II I 50 50 o I
" SALT CREEK I 29 14 I 20 22 125 65 55 50 lIS 0 lID 361 227 I
I SALT CREEK RANeR I 110 65 110 65 I
J ...., II I' 0 o I
K TElEGRAPH CANTON . I 60 31 60 31 I
l IlOIIICREST SOUTIlllESnRR 1 24 I' 0 301
II IlOIIICREST TERRA ROYR I 18 " 0 18 1
IlISC. OTIlER . I I' I 10 0 2' I
...I...............-----------I~I.......,.......I.......I......=I.......,.......,.......I.......,.......,.......,.......,.-------I~..I
TOTRlS I 86 I IIlI I 163 I 205 I 230 I 184 I 178 I 310 I 228 I 146 I m I 303 I 1170' 1386 I
NOTE: DUE TO RECENT CRAIlGES II PROJECT OUIlEIS"IP, ...., II IS NOT EIlPECTED TO "RYE PEIlIlIT RCTlVITY VITH'" .1 THE 12-18 1lOIT" FllllECAST TIRE FIME.
OFllll7_92.UR1
FIGURE 1 A
,-..
'-
~
,
'-
~
. .
,
CMUlA VISTA - SUEE~TER DISTRICT
12-18 _TN IKlJSING UIIIT FORECAST
JUly 1992 - DECEMBER 1993
,..........................,............................===,.=.===....===......=====....==.,..=.=..==......................,.................,
!
I
I
!
MAP!
ID I
JUly - DECEMBER 1992
ISSUE FINAL
NF I SF I MF I SF
JANUARY - JUlIE 1993
ISSUE FINAL
MFlsF NFl SF
JUlY - DECEMBER 1993
ISSUE FINAL
MFISFIMFISF
118 _TN FORECAST I
I TOTAL TOTAL I
I ISSUED I FIRAlEDI
PROJECT
... .......................... ....... ....... ....... ....:.. a====e= ....... .....:= ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ........
1 182 FoutTI AVE_ lD 10 10 10
2 MOORVIEV ESTATES 14 14 0
3 LAS IRISAS DEL MAR 0 0
4 SUII-UP VISTA D 0
5 628-311 TlllO AVE. 75 0 75
6 271 OJ(FORO ST. 9 0 9
7 88 FoutTI AVE. 0 0
8 588 "I." ST. 24 12 24 12
9 PARK IIOIIITA 10 9 0 19
10 1246-56 TNIIO AVE. 28 . 0 28
11 621-23 "D" ST. 8 0 8
12 256 PALM AVE. 14 14 14 14
13 21 FoutTI AVE. 8 8 8 8
14 EVERGREEN GARDENS 20 5 0 25
NISC. OTIER 6 2 6 7 8 5 5 3 7 10 24 35
...,................~._--~--~-t.......,.......I.......I.......,...~..,.......1.......,.......,.......,.......,.......,.......,........,--------1
TOTALS I 10 I 14 I 106 I 16! 7 I 22 I 56 I 14 I 24 , 17 I 19 I 32 I 94 I 243 I
DFOR7_92.1II1
FIGURE 1 B
......
. .
PROJECT STATUS - JUlT 31, 1992
OTAT WATER DISTRICT
1............~.............I.............,..........,..ta=.=...=...,.............=111............1...........1............,............,..........,..........,...-------1
I ' I PROJECT I UIlDEN' UIIITS , REMAINING III GENERAL 'SECTIONAL' TENTATIVE FIlIAL I DESIGII I PUN 1 P(1IJ11lG 1
I I TOTAL I CONST., COMPLETED 'TO BE ISSUED III OEY. PLAN I PLAN AREA 1 MAP MAP I REVIEW I CMECIC 'P(RMITS ,
, PROJECT I IIF SF I IIF SF I IIF SF 1 IIF SF III IIF SF' IIF SF '"F SF IIF SF I IIF SF 1 IIF SF' IIF SF I
,..........................,............. .......... ...........:.. ...........=..11 =........... ........... ............ ............ ..........1.......... ..~....I
I BONITA lONG CMITllII I 0 863 28 0 835 0 0 II I I
BREHM TER1lA IIIYA I 230 123 42 0 80 230 1 I 216 I 14 11
EAS .UKE I "WlllS/SNORES" 766 1057 25 766 1031 0 1 I 1 I
EASTUKE II 'TIIE GlEEIlS" 1497 1277 83 149 55 131 1359 997 625 670 640 153 124 I 10 1 B4 49 I
EASTUKE II 'TUILS' 467 793 0 0 467 793 467 793 I I
EASTUKE III_SO 0 675 0 0 0 675 675 I I
EASTlAKE III "VISTAS' 7B4 30B 0 0 7B4 30B 7B4 30B I I
EAST PAl~1 ESTATES 0 13 0 0 0 13 13 1 1
IAIIClIO DEL lET SPA I 970 1133 157 150 580 397 233 586 180 53 27'9 2801 22 5 1
UNeIlO DEL lET SPA II 0 567 0 0 0 567 567 I I
IAIICHO DEL lET SPA III 746 634 0 0 746 634 746 634 I I
"- SAN lllWEl IANCN 0 1619 0 0 0 1619 1619 1 I
~ SALT ClEEK I 357 .166 8 26 0 25 349 115 141 183 115 I '25 1
SAll ClEEK IAHCII 509 2100 0 0 509 2100 509 2100 1 I
-II 818 1128 0 0 818 1128 818 1128 I I
\ TELEGlAPI CAHTOH 0 345 0 o I 0 345 I 345.1 I I
~ IIOOOCIEST sanlM:STEIH O. 54 3B 0 16 , 0 0 III 1 I 1
~I.::::::::::.:::::.::::.....I..--~----.~.I.......::.I...~......~.:.....:......:.:::............,...........,............:..-----..---:.--------.:..........:..-----...:
10TAl NlllNG WITS 1 "44 12940 I 248 507 1 1401 2551 I 5495 9BB2 III 1251 3395 , 0 o I 3019 4877 1 1092 1127 , o 404 I 24 23 I 109 561
IIOTtS:
SAN llIWEl.UJlCtl GDP lUlIEIlTlT _ PlAHHIHG IEVIEII
TElEGlAPI CAHTOH TSIIIEC'O Pl_ING CONIIISSIOH APPROVAL FOI 345 OUt 12-16'92
SALT ClEEK UJlCtl TSII IlEC'O CDUHCll APPROVA~ FOR 2609 DUs 10-6-92
OTAT IANCI HOT LISTED - APPlICATlOI UllDEI SEPARATE IEVIEII
FIGURE 2 A
PllOJECT STATUS - JUt, 31. 1992
SWEETWATER DISTRICT
I...........~............,.....--------I..........,..............I..=...........,1,............,...........,............,............,
, PllOJECT UNDER I UIlITS I REMAINING III TENTAT! VE I FINAL DESIGN I PlAN
TOTAL CONST. I CllMPLETED I TO BE ISSUEO III MAP I MAP REVIEW I CHEClC
PROJECT MF SF MF SF I MF SF I MF SF III MF SF I MF SF MF SF I MF SF
I.......................... ............. ..........,.............. a_a=.a.===s==: 1,......=====. .==.=.===..)...=........1............
1112 FOURTH AVE. 10 0 0 o I 0 0 10 0 II I 10
MOORVIEW ESTATES 0 14 0 o I 0 0 0 14 II 14 I
LAS 8R I SAS DEL lIAR 0 28 0 o I 0 0 0 28 II 28 I
SUIl-UP VISTA 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 II 8 . I
628-38 TNIRD AV. 75 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 II . I
211-77 OIlFORD ST. 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 II I
88 FOURTN AVE. 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 II 14 ,
588 "l" ST. 48 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 II - I 48
PARK IORITA 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 II I
1246-56 TNIRD AVE. 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 II I
621'23 00" ST. 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 II I
256 PALM AV. 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 II 14 I
21 FOURTN AV. 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 III 8 I
EVERGREEN GARDERS 45 0 25 0 20 0 0 0 III I
MISC. OTNER 32 61 25 34 0 0 1 33 III 16 I 1 11
,................--------..,....---------1..........,..............,..............11,............,...........'............1....____-4__..,
TOTAL DUELLING UNITS I 291 136 I 110 53 I 20 o I 101 83 III 0 50 I 0 o I 22 301 65 11 I
1lOT!: "llISC. OTHER" I_S TROSE PllOJECTS UHICR IIlDIVIDUALLT IIMllVE LESS TRAN 1 UNITS.
'-
~
.
'-
~
~.. .
FIGURE 2 B
.
'.
(
..
JllLY 1992 CllIIIERCIAL/IIIDUSYRlAL PROJECT STATUS LISTING (_E FOOTAGE)
--I-
I OFFICE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.....--..........--.............---.------------..-------------------_._---_._._------..._._--------------...-
I
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---.1.....--...1.--......-- --1----
STATUS I REF. NO. I PROJECT NAME I ADDRESS
.......1 --..1.....--- --- -I-
I DRC-89-48 I CHEVRCIt STAIIIINI IlART I 95 IOIIITA 10.
I ORC-9O-15 I Jr ENTERPRIZES INC. I 865 AMEMA CT.
UllDER I ORC-92-06 I _MY IMPORT ICDY PARa I 3740 IlAIN IT_
COIIST.I ORC-92-16 I GRATlANNE MEDICAL OFFICE I J6D "H" ST.
I ORC-92-24 I IAYON & THEATER I 555 1Z050 IROADWAY
I ORC-9Z-49 I GES WAREHOUSE I 491 "C" ST.
I ORC-91-Z4 I IIR INDUSTRIAL ILDG.
I ORC-91-68 I LA lIAR INDUSTRIAL ILDG.
I ORC-91-72 I MEDICAL OFFICE
PLAN I ORC-92-03 IIlANSOURS IlARrET
CHEcr I ORC-92-08 I STRUCTURE FORM
I DRC-92-12 I WINLAND CAR PLAZA
I DRC-92'18 I ROLLERSrATE LAND
I TC/DR-I34 I ""I MEDICAL OFFICE
I I CAL STORES
I Je55 IlAIN IT.
I 3730 MAIN IT.
I 374 "H" ST.
I 1098 IROADWAY
I 1879-81 NIRVANA AVE.
I 770 PLAZA CT.
I 630 "L" ST.
I 256 LANDIS AV.
I 972 IROADWA Y
--....----------...1..........1
I RETAil I
1-- -I-
I 8174 I
I I
I I
1Ja1 I I
I 12634 I
14560 I 1
I
3220 I
299Z I
I
1
I
I
13776 I
I
I
I
I
6DOD I
I
75Z5 I
24291 I
I
I
IND I
I
I
17000 I
110DD I
I
I
9272D I
11856 I
13770 I
I
I
30363 I
I
I
I
20991 I
TOTAL I
--I
8174 I
17000 I
lt1000 I
lJa1 I
12634 I
107210 I
11856 I
16990 I
2992 I
6000 I
30363 I
75Z5 I
24Z91 I
13776 I
20991 I
------------------..--------....----------------.-----.--------------..---------------..----------..----------
I ORC-9' -01 INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT I 870 CANARIO CT. ~ I 12070 lZD70
I ORC-9'-46 RID SWTR. PLAZA CAR WASHI 13ZD 30TH ST. 12618 I IZ618
I ORC-91 -56 OTAY RIO ALMAGAMETED I I 87D.76 OTAT RIO RD. 3528D 35280
I DRC-91-57 OTAY RIO ALMAGAMETED II I 853-65 OTAY RID RD. 61860 61860
I ORC-91-58 OTAY RID ALMAGAMETED III1 846.6D OTAY RIO RD. 303DO 3D30D
I ORC-91-74 SWATH OCEAN, INC. I NEC "G" & TIDELANDS JeDDO 38000
I ORC-9' -82 CUSHMAN PROPERTY I 517 SHINOHARA LN. 110000 IIODOO
I DRC.9'-1] CHUlA VISTA IND. PARr lION. 5TH AVE. 152064 152064
I ORC-92'19 EAST LAKE VILLAGE I OLR & EASTLArE VLLG. 155582 155582
DRC-92'22 ARCO AM/PM GAS STATION I 660-66 "L" ST. 2915 2915
DRC-92-30 SECURITY 1ST COMM. STRGE 1274 FOURTH AVE. 25200 25200
OESIGN DRC-92-33 PADILLA INDUSTRIAL CNTR 3733 IlAIN ST. 26DOO 26000
REVIEW ORC-92-42 IONITA RETAIL 3001 IONITA RD. 10DI4 10014
ORC-92-48 rAISER PERMANENTE 2301 FENTON ST. 1350DOO 1350000
ORC.92.51 MARQUEZ INOUSTRIAL 3517 MAIN IT. 106000 106000
ORC-92'52 V.J'S ASSOCIATES, INC 293 NAPLES ST. 1600 1600
ORC-92-57 FAIVRE ST. PARTNERSHIP 2605 FAIVRE ST. 7530 753D
ORC-92-59 OISCOUNT ORNMENTAL IRON 873 DOROTHY ST. 3245 5245
ORC-92-6O WEST AUTO WRECKERS 2365 IlAIN ST. lU50 1125D
ORC-93-05 1ST UNITED METH. CHURCH E."H" ST./PASEO IANCHI 25780 25710
oRC-9]-13 SOUTHWOOD PSYCHIATRIC 950 THIRD AVE. I 2490 2490
ORC-9]-16 NESTLER CONST. INC. 282 LANOIS AVE. I 2975 2975
ORC-93-17 SOUTHSAY GOLF CENTER 10 N. FIFTH AVE. I 2124 2824
I ORC-9]-I8 RDR PRI CE CLUB E."H" ST & TIERRA DELI 136100 136100
I RDR HOllE OEPOT E."H" ST & TIERRA OELI 125210 '25210
I RDR r-MART E."H" ST & TIERRA OELI 127000 I 127000
I WINOMILL FARMS 435 THIRD AVE. I 11990 I 11990
I SCRIPPS HOSPITAL FIFTH AVE.I"H" ST. I 120000 1OS000 I 225000
.........--..---...-----.-----.-------------.----------------------------------.------------------------..--.-
, SUBTOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION 15948 I 90808 I 12mo I 234476
SUBTOTAL PLAN CHEcr I 19988 I 37816 I 76980 I 134714
SUBTOTAL DESIGN IEVIEW I 1514835 I 830167 I 4667351 2811737
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE I 1550771 I 958791 I 671435 I 31100I'7
1'18-1'/ FIGURE 3
I
BISTORXC BOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTB
CITY OP CBULA VISTA
.'. .. ...... ... '0, , __, "",.
,-,.. .... -'-,"
Units .. '. ... _,_.. n'",
...;.:.;.-.--.-.'.-.-.,-'....'........-.-..-...,'..','.
.. .....,.'" _....__._,..,.'_. ..... __,n,.
.,,--..-.....-. '. ...,............,-..
'.-c....,_..,...;,-..;..,.,:.,.-.,.,...:...._...:..::._,.;,-';-:_','
....... Authorized for ........... ,-,.,'," -,. Ce:rtif:i.ed~e~f
. .::.-..-.,.......'.......
... -.... .. ..,.
.... Construction Units ,Completed .. End Population <
Year . (Permitted) (Finaled)i (state D.O.F.)
1980 407 374 84 , 364
1981 195 496 86 ,597
1982 232 129 88 , 023
1983 479 279 89, 370
1984 1, 200 521 91, 166
1985 (1) 1 , 048 1, 552 116, 325
1986 2 , 076 1, 120 120, 285
1987 1 , 168 2 , 490 124 , 253
1988 1 ,413 829 128 , 028
1989 1 , 680 1, 321 134 , 337
1990 664 1, 552 138 ,747
1991 747 716 141,778
1992 519 689 143 , 682 (2)
.
\
(1) Montgomery Annexation
(2) Planning Department Estimate
,
/J/{3,-/r-
FIGURE 4
..
.
.
CITT OF CMUlA YISTA . JA.uaRT 1993
MID'RAlGE 5.7 TEAR RESIDEITIAl DEVElOPMEIT FORECAST
, CWUlA YISTA & REGIOW REVISED, SAIDAG I lOll-EID FORECAST I IIGI'_ FORECAST I
IISTORICAl SERIES YIII FORECAST ......................1...................................
IIlJUSIWG UIlIT FIGURES IIlJUSIIG UIlIT FIGUIlES I tv SPWERE tAPACln AS
(TOTAL I (TOTAL I 5.3ft I I OF REGIOW'S CAPAtln
................................-...--...----...--. -..-------...-..------ AVERAGE I 1995.2015 . SERIES 8
JAI. I REYlSElI _l REYISElI AlIIlUAl tvASAXOF A__l REGIOW lDUs I lIUs I I lIUs lDUs
TEAM C.Y. I IIC. REGIOW I IIC. TRE REG lOW REGIOW X IIC. 92.2lIlIlI C.Y. TEAR I REGIOW I C.Y. TEAM
........-......... --.............. -.-..---.....-..---- ....--......---... --------.-----..---- ............
1980 D.O.F. 40115 · .. 711'106 5.5ft
19111 40'67 · 0._ 731734 1.m 5.53X
19112 4_ · 1.28X 744071 1.69Il 5.5"
1983 .412l1l1 · D.55X 752265 1.1OX 5.4ft
19114 41602 · 0.9611 764122 1.5ft 5.44X
19115 42231 · 1.5" 78n10 3.0Zll 5.36X
"- 19116 43951 4.07X 821228 4.3Zll 5.35X
~ 19117 45101 2.62X 857093 4.37X 5.26'1
19l1ll 47696 5.75X 894M 4.35X 5.33X ..
19119 48691 2.09X 921m 3.06X 5.28X
\ 1990 tEIlSUS 491149 2.38X "6240 2.65X 5.27X 952755
" "" 509211 2.16X. 958859 1.33X 5.31X _n 1.69Il
19'12 515911 1.32X 971345 1.3OX 5.3" 9759115 O.73X 5.3" 515911 9759115 5.3" 51598
'A 1993 52287 1.34X 9110110 0.4Zll 5.33X 52287 689 9110110 5.m 52287 6lI9
1994 994411 1.46X 5.35X 53201 914 """ 5.35X 532lIl "4
1995 1009II10 1.55X 5.37X 54227 1026 1009II10 5.37X 54227 1026
1996 10301196 2.0" 5.3ft 55522 1295 1030096 5.4Zll 55831 1604
1"7 1052237 2.15X 5.41X 369Z6 1404 1052237 5.47X 57558 1726
19911 10745117 2.1Zll 5.43X 58350 1424 1074587 5.5Zll 59317 1760
I'" 1095973 T.99X 5.45X 59731 1380 1095973 5.57X 61046 1728
2lIOO 1115678 1.8OX 5.47X 61028 1297 1115678 5.62X 6Z71I1 1655
- _. - -- - -..... ..- -. -- -. -- -- - ---
957 Ava DU/TII 5.3ft Ava 1179 Ava DU/TII 131111 Ava DUIT
.
Fop 1980.85, Chut. VI.tw'. .....1... eount h.. _ IIdJuoted to _....., fOf' 19116 Ilont_ry ......tton ..,
1Idlfl... 1980 ___ eount fOf' entta PorIc/Ot-r pluo .......1 ..._h f..... 'lIO.85.
.. "'''' & 1011 f_..t. fOf' C.Y. utfl hed '92 & '9] K,..I houo'... e....... In pi... of tM e-,ed 50.1" 8 f_.., ff........
A:\FORE7,"1
01113193
FIGURE 5
\
\
......
~J~13
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALIFORNIA
EASTERN AREA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR STREETS
1993 REVISION
CITY COUNCIL
Tim Nader
Mayor
Robert P. Fox
Shirley Horton
Leonard M. Moore
Jerry R. Rindone
~
CITY STAFF
John D. Goss
John P. Lippitt
Clifford Swanson
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Deputy Public Works Director/
City Engineer
July 13, 1993
/~!J-d./
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Pal!:e
1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Revised Development Forecast ............................ 2
3 Revised Project Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Development Impact Fee Methodology ...................... 16
5 Advance Construction of Development Impact Fee Projects . . . . . . . . . . 20
6 Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates ..................... 22
LIST OF TABLES
1 Revised DIF Benefit Area Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Commercial Land - 40/25 EDU's per Acre Breakdown ............. 7
3 Capital Improvement Project Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Completed DIF Projects ............................... 13
5 Credits Summary ................................... 14
6 Development Impact Fee Calculation ....................... 19
LIST OF MAPS
1 Benefit Land Areas ................................... 8
2 Street Project Locations ............................... 15
APPENDIX
1 Ordinance No's. 2251, 2289, 2349, and 2431
WT:SB/BUXTON/I'RANSDIF.NAR
071393
148/d.-:J-
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
This report represents the 1993 review of the Development Impact Fee for Streets program, and
where appropriate, makes adjustments to the development impact fee based upon completed
street construction, revised development projections and revised project cost estimates.
In February 1986, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a schedule of development impact fees
(DIF) for the Eastlake I Development. These fees were to ensure that Eastlake paid its fair
share of the cost of specific street improvements including a four lane interim facility in the State
Route 125 (SR-125) corridor. Also included in the development impact fee was the cost of
constructing a fire station and a co=unity park in Eastlake 1. City staff reco=ended to the
Council that a development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of
transportation improvements by all the developments that would benefit from the improvements.
In January 1987, the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact fee program
for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805.
In December 1987, a report entitled the Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for
Streets was completed. The "area of benefit" included all the undeveloped lands that benefitted
from the proposed transportation improvements, within the City of Chula Vista and County of
San Diego, east of Interstate 805. Because the Eastern Territories General Plan Update was in
progress, the Council adopted an Interim Eastern Area development Impact Fee (DIF) in January
1988 by Ordinance Number 2251. The fee was set at $2,101 per equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The Eastern Territories General Plan Amendment was later completed and adopted.
On August 8, 1991, the City Council authorized the preparation of the "Interim SR-125 Facility
Feasibility Study." The purpose of this study was to identify an interim SR-125 facility that will
meet the transportation needs of the region until a permanent facility (freeway) could be
constructed. The report recommends the establishment of a new fee (separate from the existing
Transportation DIF) to specifically finance the construction of the interim SR-125 and related
facilities. Consequently, Projects 1 and 2 (Table 2), dealing with the SR-125 construction, have
been excluded from the Eastern Area Transportation DIF program and are now included in the
new SR-125 DIF program. Additionally, Projects 13, 24, and 37 are also included in the
reco=ended Interim SR-125 Facility. These projects are to be jointly financed by the Eastern
Area Transportation DIF and the SR-125 DIF.
Since its inception, the Transportation DIF has been updated twice, as follows:
Date
December 12, 1989
December 11, 1990
Ordinance Number
2349
2431
Fee
$2,850/EDU
$3,060/EDU
This report recommends to change the fee to $3,402/EDU.
J'If3 ,)J
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF.NAR
-1-
071393
SECTION 2
REVISED DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
One of the primary assumptions in the formulation of a development impact fee is that the need
for additional public facilities is generated by new development and the cost of the facilities
should be paid by the benefitting development.
The public facilities which are the subject of this impact fee are identified in Table 3 and on
Map 2. They include thirty nine improvement projects. The facilities included in the program
are classified as four lane major and larger.
Projects 13, 24, and 37 of Table 3 are to be jointly funded by both the Eastern Area
Transportation DIF and the SR-125 fee program. Only the portion that is not part of the
proposed SR-125 interim loop roadway system is included in this report.
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251, developers have requested to the City Council approval to
construct several DIF facilities. Table 4 presents a description of the thirteen projects already
completed for a grand total of $38,608,626.
The "Area of Benefit" is the area served or benefitted by the proposed improvements. Once
constructed, the improvements will serve the area by providing a system of roads for residents,
employees, and customers. New and future development in the City and County are generally
described in adopted or proposed specific plans. However, there are large areas of land still
vacant or used for agriculture. Map 1 identifies the undeveloped major land areas located in
both the City and County.
The proposed street projects provide routes to the regional freeway system for the developing
portions of Chula Vista. It is therefore logical to use Interstate 805 as the western boundary,
since only a limited percentage of vehicle trips from the benefit area are anticipated to travel
west of this freeway. The northern boundary has been established at Bonita Road, since the area
to the north is essentially developed, but the developing area to the south will still use Bonita.
The only exception is the property known as Bonita Gateway located at the northeast quadrant
of Bonita Road and 1-805. This property will benefit from the proposed DIF improvements and,
therefore, is included in the program. The eastern boundary has been set at the City's current
Sphere of Influence, since this entire area is expected to be oriented toward Chula Vista and will
use the project area streets. The southern boundary has been established along the proposed
extension of East Orange Avenue.
Since the last revision in November 1990, the land use categories have changed as shown below.
/L/f3 /;21
LDT:SB/BUXTONfTRANSDIF.NAR
-2-
071593
LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use . Current Number Revised Number
Single Family DU Detached 17,135 16,857
Single Family DU Attached 6,094 7,371
Multi-Family DU 1,915 3,725
Commercial Acres 143.0 262.3*
Industrial Acres 352.3 319.6
Religious Institution Acres 10.8 14.8
Golf Course Acres 156.8 156.8
Medical Center Acres 0 30.6
* Includes 14.8 acres for Visitor Center (adjacent to GTC)
Table 1 lists the revised land use using 40 EDU's/acre for commercial developments which have
already satisfied the Transportation DIF obligations at that rate and using 25 EDU's/acre for
commercial property that will be paying the DIF in the future. The commercial land breakdown
(40/25 EDU's/acre) is shown in Table 2.
JL/IJ-'H
LDT:SBiBUXTONfI'RANSDIF.NAR
-3-
071S93
--.
~
\
1'-->
~
TABLE 1
Revised DIF Benefit Area Land Use (as of July 1, 1992)
Single Single \< < <
........"'...... "'"
PaIllily PaIllily Multi. Total Il&~. Balance
...~. ~~d' Delached Attached Family R.esidelitial ,-. iDti~8 eDU's
DU DU DU DU 1"0'"'\ . (Act..) .(Acres) " . (Acres) 7+92
1 A Rancho Del Rey' 2,264 698 1,088 4,050 33.7 54.5 0 0 0 5,810 4,695' 1,115
2 G Cohen/Daley Homes 46 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 46 46 0
3 G Ladera Villas 29 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 0
4 G South CollegelWoodcrest Southwestern 54 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 0
5 G "H" Street Commercial! Bonita Point Plaza 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 400 400 0
6 G Bonita Long Canyon 863 0 0 863 0 0 0 0 0 863 863 0
7 Eastlake I 0 0 0
7a A Hills/Shores 1,057 766 0 1,823 0 0 0 0 0 1,670 1,644 26
7b,c, A Village Center, Business Park I, Kaiser 0 0 0 0 23.3 131.1 4 0 30.6 5,300 3,317' 1,983
d Hospita14
8 Eastlake II
8a I Greens6 1,349 2,093 483 3,925 86 0 4.8 156.8 0 5,893 3,3187 2,575
8b I Trails 793 467 0 1,260 15 0 4 0 0 1,558 0 1,558
9 Eastlake III
9a I Vistas 308 784 0 1,092 0 0 935 0 935
9b I Woods 675 0 0 675 0 0 675 0 675
9c I Business Park II 0 0 0 0 0 88 1,760 0 1,760
9d I Olympic Training Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 500' 500' 0
ge I Adjacent to OTC 0 0 0 0 2510 0 773 0 773
LDT:SBIBUXTONfl'RANSOIF. 'fB2.1
071693
--
~
~
-...-..J
TABLE 1
Revised DlF Benefit Area Land Use (as of July 1, 1992)
. .... Single Sirlgle ... I .......
Family Family MulU- Total ....... Religious ......... '.".
..~. I~~ttl Detached Attached Family Resideutial l$lituliou Ir^"..~ riC Paid> 9~~.
DU DU DU DU i fA""'" (ACres) I (Acres) EoE:, 1 101) V',
v .,
10 A Terra Nova Brehm 123 230 0 353 0 0 0 0 0 307 122 185
11 A Terra Nova Woodcrest 85 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 85 85 0
12 G Raucho Del Sur 285 0 200 485 0 0 2 0 0 413 413 0
13 G Mission Verde 76 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 76 76 0
14 G Canyon Views 0 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 0
15 G Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 66 0
16 E Sunbowll 1,128 580 238 1,946 10 46 0 0 0 2,905 0 2,905
17 B Bonita Meadows 300 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 300
18 F San Miguel Ranch 1,654 0 0 1,654 0 0 0 0 0 2,179 0 2,179
19 H Otay Ranch Villages 1 & 5 3,143 1,282 1,281 5,706 3311 0 0 0 0 5,762 0 5,762
20 A Sah Creek I 166 357 0 523 0 0 0 0 0 452 452" 0
21 F Sah Creek Ranch 2,100 74 435 2,609 0 0 0 0 0 2,420 0 2,420
22 E Lyndale Hills 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14
23 E Telegraph Canyon Estates 345 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 345 0 345
24 D Kelton Parcel (APN 642-020-17) 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 124 0 124
25 D Bonita Gateway 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 88 0 88
GRAND TOTAL 16,857 7,371 3,725 27,953 262.3 319.6 14.8 156.8 30.6 41,834 16,112 25,722
lDT:SBJBUXTONfl'RANIDIF. TB2-2
071393
1.
Land Use Infonnation is based on one of the following:
a) Approved Plan
b) Transportation Pbasing Plan
c) Developer's Pre-Proposal Plan
d) General Plan Land Use Designation
e) Tentative Map
f) Environmental Impact Report
g) Completed Development
h) Land Use Concept Plan
i) Development Agreement
6. Include proposed Eastlake Greens SPA Amendment
SFD SPA MP
1,277 1,497
72 596 483
1,349 2,093 483
Current Greens
SPA Amendment
7.
1,900
1.418
3,318
EDU's credited toward AD 90-3
EDU's credited toward AD 91-1
Total
8. ISO Acres Olympic Training Center (3.33 EDU's/ Acre)
2. Includes Rancho del Rey SPA Amendment
9. 500 EDU's credited toward AD 91-1.
3.
EOU's credited toward AD 87-1
EDU's credited toward AD 88-2
EDU's credited toward Bast "W Street/I-80S improvements
Per Development Agreement
10.
7.0
3.2
14.8
25.0
AC Commercial
AC Commercial/Office
AC Visitor Center ill EOU's/AC}
Total
2,076
2,185
40
394
4,695
4.
Includes BastLake I SPA Amendment
II.
31.0 AC Commercial
2.0 AC Offices
33.0 Total
5.
2,279 EOU's credited toward AD 88-1
1.038 EDU's paid
3,317 Total
12.
452 EDU's credited toward AD 90-1
'-
'-t:..
~
~
\
IDT:SBlBUXTONffRANSDIF.TB2
Comm Acres
19
67
86
071~93
TABLE 2
Commercial Land (Acres)
40/25 EOU's Per Acre Breakdown
Map Area Area Name 40 EDU's/Acre 25 EDU's/Acre Total
1 Rancho del Rey 26.8 6.9 33.7
5 Bonita Point Plaza/" H" Street Commercial 10.0 -- 10.0
7 b, c, d Village Center, Business Park I, Kaiser 6.0 17.3 23.3
Hospital
8a Eastlake II - Greens 19.0 67.0 86.0
8b Eastlake 11 - Trails -- 15.0 15.0
ge East1ake III - Adjacent to OTC -- 10.2 10.2
12 Sunbow 11 -- 10.0 10.0
18 San Miguel Ranch -- 21.0 21.0
19 Olay Ranch Units I, 5 -- 33.0 33.0
24 Kelton Parcel 3.1 -- 3.1
25 Bonita Gateway 2.2 -- 2.2
TOTAL 67.1 180.4 247.5
This table summarizes commercial land use components that have previously paid their DIF
obligation at the current rate of 40 EOU's per acre and land use components that will pay in the
future at the rate of 25 EO U' s per acre.
Jt/8~2(
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-7-
071693
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
\
\@
(@
G)
/11) /]0
.....
\ \\
L___,
\
.
\
.~
0_01
.
L
.-~
\~
'J
LEGEND:
------
-----.-
v/////////~
@
AREA OF BENEFIT
CITY BOUNDARY
DIF. STREE T
COUNTY AREA
MAP AREA
DEVELOPABLE LAND AREAl
MAP
I
I
SECTION 3
REVISED PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Ordinance No. 2251, as revised, allows for an annual adjustment to the fees to reflect changes
in the Engineering - News Record Construction Cost Index. The index experienced an increase
of 3.89% for the period of November 1990 to June 1992.
In addition, several projects currently under construction were adjusted to more accurately reflect
the actual cost of work completed and more refmed estimates for remaining work. These
projects were not adjusted by the ENR Index.
Table 3 presents the projects and costs being funded by the fee. A complete description, cost
breakdown and location map are included in Section 6.
Table 3 also identifies $6,319,885 as revenue available for DIF project construction. The
revised total project cost has been reduced by this amount. This amount includes $1,205,044,
which is the total of the fees to be paid in accordance with the Rancho del Rey Power Center
Implementation Agreement.
Ordinance No. 2251 states that a developer may request authorization from the City to construct
DIF facilities. In the event that the total construction cost amounts to more than the total fees
which will be required for the development, the owner is entitled to receive DIF credits. This
DIF credit could be used to satisfy the fee obligations for any other development. Table 5 lists
remaining credits for facilities constructed by developers for a total of $7,563,883. This amount
has been added to the revised project cost (Table 3) to obtain the total project cost to be
collected through the Transportation DIF.
The total cost of the improvements to be funded by the fee is $87,505,000.
JLjf3 - J I
LDT:SBlBUXTONrrRANSDIF.NAR
-9-
071593
TABLE 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1, 1992)
No. DIF Street Location Revised Remarks
Cost
I State Route 125 North San Miguel to Telegraph Canyon Road $0 To SR-125 DIF/CFD
2 State Route 125 South Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 0 To SR-125 DIF/CFD
Avenue
3 Telegraph Canyon Road Paseo Del Rey to East of Paseo Ladera 3,452,000 Widening to 6-lane ptime
3a Telegraph Canyon Road 1-805 Interchange Phase II 1,814,000 Interchange hnprovements (phase
llA is under construction)
4 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase I Rutgers to Eastlake Boundary 0 Project Completed
5 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase II Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive 0 Project Completed
6 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase ill Apache Drive to Rutgers Road 1,677,000 6-lane major (under construction)
7 East "H" Street 1-805 Interchange Modifications 3,780,000 Interchange Improvements (phase I
completed)
8 East "H" Street Eastlake Drive to SR-125 0 Project Completed
9 Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback 0 Project Completed
Road
10 Otay Lakes Road Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 4,574,000 Construction as 6.1ane prime (only
A venue Phase I - 4 lanes included)
II Bonita Road Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue 370,000 Widening to 4-1ane major
12 Bonita Road Central Avenue to San Miguel Road 792,000 Widening to 4-lane major
13 San Miguel Road Bonita Road to SR -125 1,574,500 Second Part of SR-125 DIF/CFD
14 East "H" Street SR -125 to Mt. Miguel Road 0 Project completed
15 Proctor Valley Road Mt. Miguel Road to Hunte Parkway 5,;\77,000 Construction as 6-lane prime
(East "R" Street)
16 East Orange Avenue Oleander to Sunbow Eastern Boundary 6,266,000 Construction as 6-lane prime
17 East Palomar Street Oleander to Sunbow Eastern Boundary 6,782,000 Construction as 4-lane major
;tf!J / 3~
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDtF.NAR
-10-
052093
TABLE 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COSTEST~ATES~Y
(AS OF JULY 1, 1992)
No. DIF Street Location Revised Remarks
Cost
18 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase IV Eastlake I Eastern Boundary to o Project Completed
Hunte Parkway
19 Eastlake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Eastlake High 0 Project Completed
School Southern Boundary
20 Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Road to Telegraph Canyon 4,395,000 Construction as 4-lane major
Road
21 Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Club House 0 Project Completed
Drive
21a Hunte Parkway Club House Drive to East Orange Avenue 1,250,000 Construction as 4-lane major
22 East Orange Avenue Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway 6,356,000 Construction as 6-lane prime
23 Paseo Ranchero Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange 3,388,000 Construction as 6-lane prime (only
Avenue Phase I - 4 lanes included)
24 East Orange Avenue Eastern Sunbow Boundary to Eastlake 7,272,000 Second Part of SR-125 DIF/CFD
Parkway
25 East Orange Avenue 1-805 Interchange Modifications 4,064,000 Interchange Improvements
26 East Palomar Street Eastern Sunbow Boundary to Paseo 3,120,000 Construction as 4-lane major
Ranchero
27 East Palomar Street 1-805 Interchange 2,673,000 Interchange Improvements
28 Telegraph Canyon Road Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road 3,114,000 Construction as 4-lane major
29 East Orange Avenue Hunte Parkway to Olympic Training Center 5,104,000 Construction as 4-lane major
30 Telegraph Canyon Road SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway 1 ,493,900 Widening to 8-lane prime
31 Eastlake Parkway Fenton Street to Telegraph Canyon Road 980,400 Widening to 6-lane major
32 East "H" Street 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive 901,000 Widening to 8 lanes
33 Bonita Road Otay Lakes Road Intersection 105,000 Intersection Improvements
34 Otay Lakes Road Elmhurst Drive Intersection 70,000 Intersection Improvements
35 East "H" Street Otay Lakes Road Intersection 221,000 Intersection Improvements
36 Traffic Signal System wide 138,000
Interconnection
)1(j'J}
LDT:SBIBUXTON/TRANSDIP.NAR
-11-
071593
TABLE 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1, 1992)
No. DIP Street Location Revised Remarks
Cost
37 Eastlake Parkway Eastlake High School Southern Boundary to 887,500 Second Part of SR-125 DIP/CPO
East Orange Avenue
38 East "H" Street Paseo Del Rey to Tierra Del Rey 682,000 Street Widening
39 Bonita Road 1-805 to Plaza Bonita Road 270,000 Street Widening
SUBTOTAL $82,943,300
A DIP program support 4 % of total project cost 3,317,732
Available Revenue Less funds available for DIP construction (6,319,885)
Ramaining Credits See Table 5 7,563,883
GRAND TOTAL $87,505,030 SAY 87,505,000
F/!J-Ji
LDT:SBlBUXTON/TRANSDIP .NAR
-12-
071393
TABLE 4
COMPLETED DIF PROJECTS
(AS OF JULY 1, 1992)
No. DIF Street Location Cost
I East "H" Street Through Rancho Del Rey $4,372,696
2 Gtay Lakes Road Intersection with East "H" Street 328,921
3 Telegraph Canyon Road Paseo del Rey to East of Paseo Ladera 350,037
(south side)
4 Telegraph Canyon Road 1-805 Interchange/Phase I 174,332
5 Gtay Lakes Road Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback 6,227,169
Road
6 Central Avenue Bonita Road to Corral Canyon 190,000
7 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase I - Rutgers Road to Eastlake 6,671,052
Boundary
8 Telegraph Canyon Road Phase II - Paseo Ladera to Apache 11,118,765
Drive
9 East "H" Street Phase I - 1-805 Modifications 577,155
10 Eastlake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Southern 1,883,636
High School Boundary
11 Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Road to Club House 1,251,299
Drive
12 East "H" Street Eastlake Drive to SR-125 and 2,075,047
SR-125 to Mt. Miguel Road
13 Telegraph Canyon Road Eastlake Boundary to Hunte Parkway 3,388,518
GRAND TOTAL $38,608,626
COMPLETED
Note: * = Under revision
*
*
/L/!J/3~
LDT;SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-13-
052093
TABLE 5
CREDITS SUMMARY
(AS OF JULY 1, 1992)
Project Location Total Cost Fees Paid Credits Used Credits Remarks
Remaining
Telegraph Canyon Road Rutgers Road to $6,671,502 $6,671,502 $0 $0 Fees Paid Through
(Phase I) Eastlake Boundary Assessment District No. 88-1
Otay Lakes Road Camino del Cerra 6,227,169 6,227,169 0 0 Fees Paid Through
Grande to Ridgeback Assessment District No. 88-2
Road
Telegraph Canyon Road Paseo Ladera to Apache 11,118,764' 5,863,573 2,360,780 2,894,402 Fees Paid Through
(Phase ll) Drive Assessment District No. 91-}
East nH n Street 1-805 Interchange 577,155 0 122,400 454,755
Modifications
East "H" Street Through Rancho Del 4,372,696 4,361,046 0 11,650 Fees Paid Through
Rey Assessment District No. 87.1
East "H" Street Eastlake Dr. to SR.125 2,075,047' 1,381,896 0 693,151 Fees Paid Through
and 5R-125 to Mt. Assessment District No. 90.1
Miguel Road
State Route 125 Within Salt Creek I 2,622,740' 0 0 2,622,470
Eastlake Parkway Telegraph Canyon Rd. 1,883,636 1,729,969 0 153,667 Fees Paid Through
to Southern Eastlake Assessment District No. 90-3
High School Boundary
Hunte Parkway Telegraph Canyon Rd. 1,251,299 1,233,158 0 18,141 Fees Paid Through
to Club House Drive Assessment District No. 90-3
Telegraph Canyon Road Eastlake Easterly 3,388,518 2,793,069 0 595,449 Fees Paid Through
Boundary to Hunte Assessment District No. 90-3
Pkwy.
East ~H" Street Otay Lakes Road 120,198 0 0 120,198
Intersection (Right-of-
way at Kelton Parcel
APN# 642-020-17)
TOTALS $40,308,454 $30,261,382 $2,483,189 $7,563,883
Note: * = Under revision
/L/!]--JG
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-14-
052093
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
/',
( ,
, ')
I, I
('.-- :-"L -..J I
I rl
I I
\ _-' I
"" I
\ ".'" I
V I
I
I
I
I
-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
@
@
@
I
\
\
1
I
I
\
,
I
I
;"
\ (
\\
\ \
\J
LEGEND:
------- AREA OF BENEFIT
OIF: STREET
@*
@*
~
\
L__~
*
*
G)
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
STREET INTERSECTION
PROJECT NUMBER
JY(}' 37
ITREET PROJECT LOCATION
MAP 2
II
SECTION 4
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
One of the most common tools used to equate benefit impact fees among the different land uses
and densities is the "Equivalent Dwelling Unit" or EDU. The single-family detached dwelling
is the base for the assignment of EDU's. The difference in the ratio between the land uses and
densities is related to benefit or amount of use that each particular land use receives from a
specific public facility category.
For example, there is a clear relationship between the generation of traffic trips based on the
land use and density of a specific parcel and the use of transportation facilities. In the report
"San Diego Traffic Generators," published by SANDAG, the traffic trips generated by various
classes of use are detailed. The report indicates that there are an average of 10 daily trips from
a single-family detached dwelling unit, 8 trips from an attached unit, and 6 trips from a multi-
family structure. Traffic generation rates for industrial land uses vary. Business parks average
200 trips per acre. Although 300 ADT was used in the Interim DIF, further traffic reports,
including the "Transportation Analysis" for Rancho Del Rey, SPA I, proved a more accurate
figure to be 200 ADT for the "R" Street Industrial Employment Park. This figure, which
conforms to SANDAG's 200 ADT's for Business Parks is used here for transportation EDU's.
The Convention Center and Quasi Public uses listed are for the Olympic Training Center. The
Convention Center ADT's are from SANDAG trip generation factors and are consistent with the
hotel, convention facilities, retail, and office uses.
The Olympic Training Center is a "quasi public" facility which renders an essentially public
service but will be privately owned and controlled. The athletic facilities and housing for 1,000
athletes are a unique situation which is not specifically listed as a land use for trip generation
factors. There will be no major events to draw the public and the young people coming to train
will mostly remain in the general area during their stay. A study produced by Urban Systems
Associates for Eastlake III showed that based on the Olympic Training plan, the entire aTC
acreage will generate 5,000 ADT. Therefore, a total of 500 EDU will be counted for this
development.
A "religious institution" is primarily a place of religious assembly. It may have associated uses
such as educational or counseling services. Four EDU's per acre is used.
The "Kaiser Medical Center" (30.6 acres) has been assigned a total of 1,989 EDU's. This
figure is based on a traffic generation rate of 650 trips/acre pursuant to the Development
Agreement approved by the City Council on June 30, 1992.
/L/J- :s;r
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-16-
052093
Transportation Equivalent Dwelling Units
Single Family Detached 1.00 EDU/DU
Single Family Attached 0.80 EDU/DU
Multi-Family 0.60 EDU/DU
Commercial I Acre* 40.00/25.00 EDU/Acre
Industrial! Acre 20.00 EDU/Acre
Religious Institution 4.00 EDU/Acre
GTC 3.33 EDU/Acre
Adjacent to GTC 35.00 EDU/Acre
Golf Course 0.80 EDU/Acre
Medical Center 65 EDU/Acre
* Previous studies have used a traffic generator factor of 400 trips/acre for commercial
land. City staff recommends to reduce this factor to 250 trips/acre to give full consideration to
the "passerby trips" phenomenon. Passerby trips are trips in which a stop at retail commercial
is one part of a linked trip to or from work. This report proposes a revised fee based on 250
trips/acre for commercial property that will be paying the commercial DIF in the future.
The circulation system must be viewed as a whole. Breakdowns in any part of the system will
have a deleterious impact on other parts of the system. The analogy of a water system is
sometimes used where constrictions or disruptions in any part of the system will have significant
impacts on the whole system.
The scope of the improvements and the area of benefit are determined by an analysis of impacts
on the total circulation system east of Interstate 805 for various increments of cumulative
development within the total area of benefit. Therefore, the cost of all the required improve-
ments has been spread equally to all new development regardless of the location of the
improvement in relation to the development.
The improvements to be provided by the development impact fee are included in the
Transportation Phasing Plan. They are consistent with the general plan and specific plans that
have been adopted by the City Council.
The fee shall be collected as a condition of building permit issuance. The fee is subject to an
annual adjustment based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Index each fiscal
year. Fees may also be adjusted based on updated information regarding land use or the type,
size, location, or cost of proposed facilities. Committed SLTPP (projects whose State matching
rate is finalized) will be considered in estimating project costs. .
Pi!J ~ Ji
lDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-17-
071693
All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest accruing fund and shall be expended only with
the approval of the City Council for DIP projects listed in this report.
/'-/() /t/tJ
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-18-
052093
Table 6
Development Impact Fee Calculation
Per Eouivalent Dwellinl! Unit
Total Cost
of Improvements
Total EDU's
$87.505.000
25,722 EDU's
Use:
$3,401.95/EDU
$3,402/EDU
1993 Revised Eastern Area
Develonment Imnact Fees for Streets
Category Existing Fee 1993
Revised Fee
Single Family Detached $3,060/DU 3,402/DU
Single Family Attached 2,448/DU 2,722/DU
Multi-Family 1,836/DU 2,042/DU
Commercial! Acre 122,400/AC 85,050/AC
Industrial/Acre 61,200/AC 68,040/AC
Religious Institution 1l,400/AC 13,608/AC
GTC 1O,190/AC N/A
Golf Course 2,448/AC 2, 722/AC
Medical Center -- 221, 130/AC
Jt/f)~L/1
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-19-
071393
SECTION 5
ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROJECTS
An owner/developer may request authorization from the City to construct one or more of the
projects which are included in the list of facilities with development impact fee charges. The
owner/developer proposing to construct a development impact fee project, shall apply for
approval of the City Council. The application shall contain at least the following information
and requirements:
A) Detailed description of the project with a preliminary cost estimate.
B) Requires of owner/developer:
. prepare plans and specifications for approval by the City;
. secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project;
. secure all required permits, environmental clearances necessary for construction
of the project;
. provide performance bonds;
. pay all City fees and costs.
. coordinate with City and Caltrans to facilitate inclusion of projects in State-Local
Transportation Partnership Program authorized under SB300 and SB2829
C) The owner/developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the project. The City
will not be responsible for any construction costs.
D) The owner/developer shall secure at least three (3) qualified bids for the construction.
Any extra work or charges during construction shall be justified and documented.
E) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the owner/ developer
shall submit verification to the City of payments made for the construction. The City
Manager shall make the final determination on expenditures eligible for credit or cash
reimbursement.
F) The City shall inspect all construction and verify quantities, in accordance with the City
and State Code to ensure that the final improvement complies with all applicable
standards and is constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
G) The owner/developer will receive a credit against the required development impact fees
during the issuance of building permits for the proposed development.
If the total eligible construction costs actually expended by the developer amounts to
more than the total required development impact fees, the owner/developer will be paid
the excess cash when funds are available as determined by the City Manager.
J i!J - tf J..
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-20-
052093
DIF credits received by an owner/developer cannot be used to pay the 4% administration
fee portion of the total transportation DIF fee required of future building permits, Le.
credits may be used to satisfy 96% of future individual transportation DIF obligations.
All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest accruing fund and shall be expended
only with the approval of the City Council for DIF projects listed in this report.
H) The City will assist the development community by making application for funding under
the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) authorized under SB300 and
SB2829 if so requested by the owner/developer at the time of request for authorization
to construct a development impact fee project. The developer shall be responsible for
providing any and all information necessary for the City to make application to Caltrans
for this program.
Any funds received by the City from the SLTPP shall be deposited into the City's DIF
account and used to offset future costs of the DIF program or for early payback of excess
developer expenditures as determined by the City. SLTPP funds received or committed
on projects which have been started, but are yet incomplete, will be accounted for at the
time adjustments/re-evaluations of the Transportation Development Impact Fee occurs.
Note: The transportation phasing plan provides a prioritization and the timing of need with
respect to cumulative development for each of the DIF projects. This information together with
the Development Impact Fee Report is considered in approving owner/ developer construction
and the timing of credit or cash disbursements.
;L//J/L/3
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-21-
052093
Project No.
3
3a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21a
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
A
SECTION 6
PROJECT DESCRIPrION AND COST ESTIMATE
Title Pal!e
Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ladera ...................... 23
Telegraph Canyon Road/Interstate 805 ...................... 25
Telegraph Canyon Road/Phase I .......................... 28
Telegraph Canyon Road/Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Telegraph Canyon Road/Phase III ......................... 32
East "H" Street/Interstate 805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
East "H" Street/State Route 125 .......................... 36
Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Otay Lakes Road/South Boundary ......................... 40
Bonita Road/Central ................................. 42
Bonita Road/San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
San Miguel Road/State Route 125 ......................... 46
East "H" Street/San Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Proctor Valley Road/Hunte Parkway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
East Orange A venue/Sunbow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
East Palomar Street/Sunbow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Telegraph Canyon Road/Hunte Parkway ..................... 56
EastIake Parkway High School ........................... 58
Hunte Parkway/Telegraph Canyon Road ..................... 60
Hunte Parkway/Club House Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Hunte Parkway/East Orange Avenue ....................... 64
East Orange A venue/Hunte Parkway ....................... 66
Paseo Ranchero Road/Southern Boundary .................... 68
East Orange Avenue/EastIake Parkway ...................... 70
East Orange Avenue/Interstate 805 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
East Palomar Street/Paseo Ranchero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
East Palomar Street/Interstate 805 ......................... 76
Telegraph Canyon Road/Wueste Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
East Orange Avenue/OTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Telegraph Canyon Road/EastIake Parkway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
EastIake Parkway/Telegraph Canyon Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Drive .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Otay Lakes Road/Bonita Road ........................... 88
Otay Lakes Road/Elmhurst Drive ......................... 90
East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road ......................... 92
Traffic Signal Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
EastIake Parkway/East Orange Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
East "H" Street/Power Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Bonita Road/Plaza Bonita Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100
4% DIF Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
! tj(3 ~t/i
-22-
052093
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
PROJECT NO.3
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
PASEO DEL REV TO EAST OF PASEO LADERA
Project Description:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road to a six lane prime arterial street
(104 feet curb to curb) from Paseo Del Rey to east of Paseo
Ladera. Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, curb, sidewalk, street lighting, landscaping and median
landscaping. This project includes the median landscaping from
Interstate 805 to Paseo Del Rey.
Cost Estimate:
$3,452,000
Project Location:
c:i
a:
(^,
, '
;--, t, :
, ---.I ,
: r-J
\ ,,--' ,
\ ,," ,
y ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-..,
/1
,
,
,
,
.. ,.J
"
...
'-of ,
;t ,
Ii~ I
~ ....."""'....""'\ I
_.....~E- \ I
O~"'NG~ \ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\J
~ll.
~
o
ell
,
-
,,-/
/ L/ [S /t-/l;>
LDT,SBfBUXTONrrRANSDlF.NAR
-23-
052093
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
NORTH SIDE: PASEO DEL REY TO EAST OF PASEO LADERA
SOUTH SIDE: EAST OF MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE TO SUNBOW BOUNDARY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
I. NORTH SIDE
Surface Improvements $ 1,178,000
Utility Relocation 104,000
Dry Utility 229.000
Subtotal $ 1,511,000
II. SOUTH SIDE
Surface Improvements $ 501,000
Water Line Relocation 104,000
Traffic Signal 104.000
Subtotal $ 2,220,000
III. LANDSCAPING MEDIAN & SLOPES 412.000
Subtotal $ 2,632,000
IV. 15 % Contingency 395.000
Subtotal $ 3,027,000
V. 6% Design 182,000
VI. 6% Inspection and Administration 182.000
Subtotal $ 3,391,000
VII. 2 % DIF Administration 61.000
TOTAL $ 3,452,000
USE $ 3.452.000
J L/!3 -Vb
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-24-
052093
PROJECT NO. 3a
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
~RSTATE805~RCHANGE
PHASE IT
Project Description:
Provide operational improvements at the interchange of Interstate
805 and Telegraph Canyon Road. Improvements to include ramp
widening, intersection widening, and signal synchronization on
both the north and south sides of Telegraph Canyon Road, east and
west of the freeway. Phase I is completed. Phase II is to be com-
pleted in three sub-phases:
Cost Estimate:
Phase IIa (under construction)
Phase lIb
Phase lIe
TOTAL
$ 46,000
$ 320,000
$ 1.448.000
$ 1,814,000
Q
II:
(^,
, ,
,..--, L, 1
, --....J ,
, ,-J
\ .,,--" ,
\ .,,'" ,
y ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-.,
/1
,
,
,
,
,.J
~ l /
iir' -< ,
~ '
"'W _"'" I
_- , I
--~t:. \ I
OR"NGE \ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\1
RO.
Project Location:
.,
o
..
,
-
/Lje-l-/7
LDT:SBIBUXTONfTRANSDIF.NAR
-25-
052093
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
PHASE II
COST ESTIMATE
Phase IIa
(Under Construction)
Estimate
June 1992
I. Project Cost $ 326,700
II. Administration $ 11,300
III. 2 % DIF Project Administration $ 6.500
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 344,500
Less total Expenditures to 6/30/92 $ (298.746)
$ 45,754
USE $ 46.000
1) Cost estimate is from agreement with Caltrans (Includes improvements, contingency,
design, and inspection)
Phase lIb
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 193,200
II. 20 % Contingency $ 38.600
Subtotal $ 231,800
III. 12 % Preliminary Engineering $ 27,800
IV. 20% Construction Engineering $ 46.400
Subtotal $ 306,000
V. 4 % Administration $ 9,300
VI. 2 % DIF Project Administration 4.600
TOTAL $ 319,900
USE $ 320.000
j4(3 -i<l
LDT:SB/BUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR -26- 052093
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
PHASE II
COST ESTIMATE
Phase lIe
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 847,500
II. 20 % Contingency 174.900
Subtotal $ 1,049,400
III. 12 % Preliminary Engineering $ 125,900
IV. 20 % Construction Engineering 209.900
Subtotal $ 1,385,200
V. 4 % Administration $ 42,000
VI. 2 % DIF Project Administration 21.000
TOTAL $ 1,448,200
USE $ 1,448.000
JL! !J -'/7
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-27-
052093
PROJECT NO.4
PHASE I
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
RUTGERS ROAD TO THE EASTERN EASTLAKE I BOUNDARY
Project Description:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road to a six lane prime arterial (104
feet curb to curb) from Rutgers Avenue past State Route 125 to the
eastern boundary of Eastiake I. Improvements to include grading,
pavement, curb and gutter, raised landscaped median, street
lighting, sidewalks, and storm drains.
Drainage channel not included.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
ci
GI:
(",
, ,
,.--, ~ f
, --...J ,
, ,-J
\ ~--'" ,
, ~
"'~ ,
,
,
,
,
,
L
---
..,
,,"'....I..[)- /'
,
I
I
I
I
.. ,J
Joi. /
~ I
~ '
"W _""" I
_- \ I
--~E. \ I
ORANGE \ /
\ ,
\ ,
V
,",0.
.,. -H-
..
o
..
1
\ .,.~
\ ~~GFlAPl'I
C
~lISEO
RANCHERO
OtolAR ST. _ ....
\ ElIST PAl.. ....- lI~ T
r-- E
\
'----J.
F-/!J /.)0
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-28-
052093
PHASE I
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
RUTGERS ROAD TO THE EASTERN EASTLAKE I BOUNDARY
I. Construction Costs
II. Incidental Costs
III. 2 % DIF Support
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL
1) Final Cost is from Assessement District No. 88-1.
LDT:SBfBUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-29-
/ L/ !J ~~ I
Estimate
May 1991
$ 5,604,087
936,160
130.805
$ 6,671,052
052093
PROJECT NO.5
PHASE n
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
PASEO LADERA TO APACHE ROAD
Project Description:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road to a six lane prime arterial (104
feet curb to curb) from Paseo Ladera to Apache Road. Improve-
ments to inlcude grading, pavement, curb and gutter, raised
landscaped median, street lighting and storm drains.
Drainage channel not included.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
c:i
II:
(^,
, ,
...--, ~ 1
, --...J ,
: r-J
\ ,,--' ,
, "," ,
y ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-...,
",,\,.\..F:r /J
,
,
,
,
,J
/
,
,
I
I
\ I
\ l
\ ,
\ ,
\ I
\)
Go ~~
:... ~
~ -<
a;~
"W _"'"
,....- ,
-
_""'""E.
ORANGE
~
o
!II
I
/i(J-5~
LDT:SBIBUXTONfTRANSDlF .NAR
-30-
052093
PHASE II
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
PASEO LADERA TO APACHE ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
I. Construction Costs
II. Incidental Costs
III. 2% DIF Support
Subtotal
(Less Channel Cost)
TOTAL
1) Cost Estimate is from Assessement District No. 91-1 (under revision).
/L/{J '-{J
LDT;SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-31-
Estimate
May 1992
$ 9,413,310
2,423,259
218.015
$ 12,054,584
( 935.820)
$ 11,118,764
052093
PROJECT NO.6
PHASE m
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/OTAY LAKES ROAD
APACHE DRIVE TO RUTGERS ROAD
Project Description:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road to a six lane major street (104 feet
curb to curb) from Apache Drive to Rutgers Road. Improvements
to include grading, pavement, curb and gutter, raised landscaped
median, street lighting, traffic signal, storm drains, and right-of-
way acquisition.
Cost Estimate:
$1,677 ,000 (under construction)
Project Location:
c::i
lIl:
(^,
I '
.._-, ~ 1
· ---J I
: r-J
\ ..--" I
\ "," I
Y I
,
I
I
I
L__
-..,
,.;'
I
,
,
,
,
,J
/
l
,
I
,
I
I
\ I
\ '
\ ,
\J
/ L/ tJ / ~i
'"
o
'"
.
\ 7"
\ E"1.E"GRAPl'I
(
\ EAS"
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-32-
052093
PHASE III
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD/OTAY LAKES ROAD
APACHE DRIVE TO RUTGERS ROAD
(Under Construction)
COST ESTIMATE
I. Construction Cost (less channel costs)
Subtotal
II. 7 % Contingencies
Subtotal
III. Design Consultant + Soils + Survey
IV. City Plan Check & Inspection
Subtotal
Subtotal
V. Less Non-DIF Funds
Subtotal
VI. 2 % DIF Project Administration
TOTAL
VII. (Less Expenditures to 6/30/92)
USE
Funds Distribution
FAU.
Navy
Subtotal
Non DIF Funds
$1,455,476
1.431.000
$2,886,476
1.
June 1992 Cost estimate is based on bid infOrmatiOj tj Ij -.5'5
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-33-
Estimate
June 1992
$ 4,043,000
111.800
$ 3,931,200
275.000
$ 4,206,200
$ 448,000
450.000
$ 898,000
$ 5,104,200
2.886.476
$ 2,217,724
84.124
$ 2,301,848
(624.705)
$ 1,677,143
$ 1.677.000
052093
PROJECT NO.7
EAST "B" STREET
ThITERSTATE 805 ThITERCHANGE
Project Description:
Provide operational improvements at the interchange of East B
Street and Interstate 805. Improvements to include ramp widening,
intersection widening, and signal synchronization on both the north
and south side of East B Street, east and west of the freeway.
This project consists of twD construction phases.
Cost Estimate:
Phase I
Phase II
Complete
$ 3,780,000
Project Location:
Q
Ill:
^
( "
I. )
...--, L, I
· ---J ,
: ,...J
\ ",- -' ,
\ ",'" I
Y I
,
I
I
I
L__
-..,
-JI>-,,\.Er //
,
,
,
,
It ,.J
./
)Ii.
.~ ,
~ \
'W ....__'\ {
_....~€- \ I
OR..NGl \ fl
\ ,
\ ,
\J
'"
o
..
\
\ E..s"t
J 1'15" J'&
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-34-
052093
EAST "H" STREET
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
COST ESTIMATE
Phase I
(Completed)
Subtotal
Final Cost
August 1991
$ 570,713
0
$ 570,713
$ 6.442
$ 577,155
I. West of Bridge Reimbursement Summary
II. 15% Contingency
111. 2 % City Administration
TOTAL
1) Final cost is from Rancho Del Rey Partnership
Phase II
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements (includes contingency) $ 2,611,000
II. Utilities Relocation 10,000
111. Incidentals $ 1.085.000
Subtotal $ 3,706,000
IV. 2 % DIF Project Administration $ 74.100
TOTAL $ 3,780,100
USE $ 3.780.0QO
1. Cost estimate is from Caltrans Project Study Report
/L/(J'S7
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF ,NAR
-35-
052093
PROJECT NO.8
EAST 8 STREET
EASTLAKE DRIVE TO STATE ROUTE 125
Project Description:
Construction East "8" Street from EastIake Drive to State Route
125 as a four lane major street (80 feet curb to curb). Improve-
ments to include grading, pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
raised landscaped median, and street lighting. Mass grading has
been completed. No additional right-of-way will be acquired.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
ci
g:
^
( "
, )
__, ~ I
,. ---J ,
-....'\ , J
~ \ , r
\ ",--' ,
\ ",'" ,
Y I
I
,
,
,
L___ ..,
/1
I
I
I
I
,J
/
,
,
I
,
,
t'
\ ,
\ ,
\J
)u/5/ 5~
'"
o
~
I
\ T
\ E"I.CGRAPII
(
\ EAS1
LDT:SBIBUXTONiTRANSDIF .NAR
-36-
052093
EAST H STREET
EASTLAKE DRIVE TO STATE ROUTE 125 AND
STATE ROUTE 125 TO MT. MIGUEL ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
I.
II.
Construction Costs
Incidental Costs
TOTAL
Estimate
June 1992
$ 1,755,200
319.847
$ 2,075,047
1) Cost estimate is for construction of the following portions of East "H" Street:
Project No. 8 - Eastlake Drive to SR-125
Project No. 14 - SR-125 to Mt. Miguel Road
Cost estimate is from the Baldwing Company. Currently under revision.
/L/!J/5J
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-37-
052093
PROJECT NO.9
OTAY LAKES ROAD
CAMINO DEL CERRO GRANDE TO RIDGEBACK ROAD
Project Description:
Widen Otay Lakes Road to a four lane major street (80' curb to
curb) from Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Road.
. Improvement to include grading, pavement, drainage facilities,
curb, sidewalk, raised landscaped median, street lighting, and
electrical utility relocation. Improvements will require additional
land acquisition.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
c:i
II:
^
( "
, )
_-, L, I
.~ ---J J
: ,-J
\ ,.--" ,
\ ,." ,
'" ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,J
,/
,
,
I
....-'\ I
-- \,
_-",\IE-
OIl",NGE \ IJ
\ .
\ '
\ I
\J
oil
o
1Il
I
-
F--I(j ~&O
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-38-
052093
OTAY LAKES ROAD
CAMINO DEL CERRO GRANDE TO RIDGEBACK ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
January 1990
I. Construction Costs
II. Incidental Costs
III. 2 % DIF Support
TOTAL
$ 5,408,403
696,664
122.101
$ 6,227,169
1) Final Cost is from Assessement District No. 88-2.
/tj()/(p (
LDT,SB/BUXTON/TRANSDlF .NAR
-39-
052093
PROJECT NO. 10
OTAY LAKES ROAD
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
PHASE I
Project Description:
Construct Otay Lakes Road as a six lane prime arterial (104 feet
curb to curb), from Telegraph Canyon Road to East Orange
Avenue. Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, curb, sidewalks, landscaping, and street lighting. This
project is to be constructed in two phases. Only Phase I is
included in this report.
Cost Estimate:
Phase I
$4,574,000
Project Location:
........"\
\
\ "",,""--'
, ,,"
y
(^,
J '
,.--, c... )
---J I
: ,J
J
J
J
J
I
J
J
L__
-...,
,If
~o. I
I
I
I
,J
/
,
,
,
--, ,
-- \
_.... .."Eo. I
O~"llG~ \ ,I
\ J
\ ,
'\1
ci
II:
...
o
...
I
Ii (] ~bcA
LDT:SB/BUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-40-
052093
OTAY LAKES ROAD
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
PHASE I
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 3,488,400
II. 15 % Contingency 523.300
Subtotal $ 4,011,700
III. 6 % Design $ 241,000
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 241.000
Subtotal $ 4,493,700
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 80.200
TOTAL $ 4,573,900
USE $ 4.574.000
1. Original project was extended southerly to the new DIF boundary (proposed East Orange
Avenue alignment).
2. Phase I cost estimate is for full grading, full landscaped median, 32 feet of pavement
each way and sidewalk. Phase II will be included later when additional development
warrants the construction of the remaining improvements to complete a 6 lane facility.
/ tj!J -~)
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-41-
052093
PROJECT NO. 11
BONITA ROAD
OTAY LAKES ROAD TO CENTRAL AVENUE
Project Description:
Widen Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue to
a four lane major street standard (80 feet curb to curb). Improve-
ments to include grading, pavement, drainage facilities, curb,
sidewalk, raised median, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$370,000
Project Location:
..
a:
^
( "
I )
_-, t, I
~ ---J I
: ,-J
\ ,- -' ,
\ " ,
Y I
I
,
,
I
L__ .
-..,
,/'
,
I
,
,
,
,J
,/
,
,
I
,
I
\ {'
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,
\:
1;>0.
..
o
..
I
)L-j!J '& ~/
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-42-
052093
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
BONITA ROAD
OTAY LAKES ROAD TO CENTRAL AVENUE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
Public Improvements $ 282,500
15 % Contingency 42.400
Subtotal $ 324,900
6% Design 19,500
6% Inspection & Administration 19.500
Subtotal $ 363,900
2 % DIF Administration 6.500
TOTAL $ 370,400
USE $ 370,000
1. This street portion is a cooperative effort with the County.
2. Cost estimate represents the City's share of the total cost for the project. The City's
share is 32% of the total length.
/t/!J/t5
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-43-
052093
PROJECT NO. 12
BONITA ROAD
CENTRAL AVENUE TO SAN MIGUEL ROAD
Project Description:
Widen Bonita Road from Central A venue to San Miguel Road to
a four lane major street (80 feet curb to curb). Improvements to
include grading, pavement, drainage facilities, curb, sidewalk and
street lighting. Improvements will require additional land acquisi-
tion.
Cost Estimate:
$792,000
Project Location:
ci
Q:
(",
, ,
,..--1 ~ f
, --....J ,
, r-J
;t/IIIea_' ,
\,........ ,
,
,
,
,
,
L__
-...,
"",,\..Ei- /'
,
,
,
,
,
~o. ~ ~
..... /
~ I
I: '
"W _"'" I
_- , I
--~f- \ I
OR"NGE \ l
\ I
\ I
\1
lifJ-&&
LDT:SBfBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-44-
052093
BONITA ROAD
CENTRAL A VENUE TO SAN MIGUEL ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Subtotal
Estimate
June 1992
$ 590,400
88.600
$ 697,000
40,700
40.700
$ 778,400
13.900
TOTAL $ 792,300
USE $ 792.000
I. Surface Improvements
II. 15% Contingency
III. 6% Design
IV. 6 % Inspection & Administration
Subtotal
V. 2 % DIF Project Administration
1. This street portion is a cooperative effort with the County.
2. The City's share of the cost is based on the City's share of the traffic generation figures.
1'-(1)/&7
LDT,SBIBUXTON/TRANSDlF.NAR
-45-
052093
PROJECT NO. 13
SAN MIGUEL ROAD
BONITA ROAD TO STATE ROUTE 125
Project Description:
Widen San Miguel Road to a Class I collector street (68 feet curb
to curb) from Bonita Road to future State Route 125. Improve-
ments will include grading, pavement, curb, sidewalk, drainage
facilities and street lighting. Improvements will require additional
land acquisition and possil?!e demolition of structures.
Cost Estimate:
$1,574,500
Project Location:
ci
a::
(^',
I '
,.--1 L, !
, --...J I
I ,-J
"".... - " ,
\.....,- I
,
,
I
I
I
L_ .
- - ...,
".......\.Er ,.--II
,
,
,
,
,
.. ,J
iii. "
~ ,
~ ,
~ ---, {
--~f- \ I
Oll..",GE \ l
\ I
\ ,
\J
"0.
.a
o
lD
,
/1fJrtt
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-46-
052093
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
SAN MIGUEL ROAD
BONITA ROAD TO STATE ROUTE 125
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
Surface Improvements $ 1,201,000
15 % Contingency 180.100
Subtotal $ 1,381,100
6 % Design 82,900
6 % Inspection & Administration 82.900
Subtotal $ 1,546,900
2 % DlF Project Administration 27 .600
TOTAL $ 1,574,500
USE $ 1.574,500
1. This project is to be jointly financed by the Eastern Area Transportation DlF Program
and the SR-125 DlF program.
2. Cost estimate represents the portion of the street being included in the Eastern Area
Transportation DIF Program.
/f!3 ~t!
-47-
052093
LDT,SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
PROJECT NO. 14
EAST "H" STREET
STATE ROUTE 125 TO MT. MIGUEL ROAD
Project Description:
Construct East "H" Street from State Route 125 to future San
Miguel Road as a six lane prime street (104 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks. raised landscaped median, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, ,
,--, ~ 1
; ---J ,
, ,-J
.,- -" ,
\ .,-" ,
'" ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-..,
",,\.\.E)- /'
,
,
,
,
,
It ,J
/
1>.
~ I
S ,
~ I
,...--'\ I
--~E. \ I
O~ANGE \ ('
\ I
\ ,
\1
lt~.
~o.
'"
o
!Il
I
, EAS"
Jt/g~70
LDT:SBfBUXTONITRANSDlF .NAR
-48-
052093
EAST "B" STREET
STATE ROUTE 125 TO MT. MIGUEL ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
(See Project No.8)
/11)/7/
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-49-
052093
PROJECT NO. 15
PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD (EAST H STREET)
MT. MIGUEL ROAD TO HUNTE PARKWAY
Project Description:
Construct Proctor Valley Road from Mt. Miguel Road to Hunte
Parkway as a six lane prime street (104 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, raised landscaped median, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
Phase I
$5,377,000
Proiect Location:
ci
II:
(",
, '
~--, c... :
, ---J ,
, r-J
...- -" I
'y....... I
I
I
,
,
,
L__
-...,
-.j~\..\.El- ,--I'
I
I
,
I
I
,,0... ,J
"
'lI-
;r ,
~ :
. "'"'.... -, ,
_....~E- \ I
O""NGE \ l
\ ,
\ ,
\J
'"
o
..
,
)'-Ij-7A
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-50-
052093
PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD (EAST "H" STREET)
MT. MIGUEL ROAD TO HUNTE PARKWAY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Surface Improvements $ 4,102,000
II. 15 % Contingency 615.000
Subtotal $ 4,717,000
III. 6 % Design $ 283,000
IV. 6 % Inspection & Administration 283.000
Subtotal $ 5,283,000
V. 2 % DIF Project Administration $ 94.000
TOTAL $ 5,377,000
USE $ 5.377.000
)tjfj-73
LDT,SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAB
-51-
052093
PROJECT NO. 16
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
OLEANDER A VENUE TO EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY
Project Description:
Construct East Orange Avenue as a six lane lane prime arterial
(104 feet curb to curb), from Oleander Avenue to the eastern
SUNBOW boundary. Improvements to include grading, pavement,
drainage facilities, curb,' sidewalks, landscaping, and street
lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$6,266,000
Project Location:
Q
II:
(""
, "
..--, t, :
r ---J I
: ,J
\ ",--' ,
, ",'" ,
v ,
I
,
,
,
L_..._
..,
./,
I
~o. I
,
,
I
,J
/
,
,
I
,
(
\ ('
\ ,
\ ,
, I
\;
1,-/1--7'-/
III
o
..
I
-
, E"'s"
,
I...-__.l
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-52-
052093
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
OLEANDER AVENUE TO EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Surface Improvement $ 4,779,000
II. 15 % Contingency 717,000
$ 5,496,000
III. 6 % Design $ 329,800
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 329,800
Subtotal $ 6,155,600
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 109,900
TOTAL $ 6,265,500
USE $ 6.266.000
,
/
I t/ 1"?.7
LDT,SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-53-
052093
PROJECT NO. 17
EAST PALOMAR STREET
1-805 TO EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY
Project Description:
Construct East Palomar Street from 1-805 to the eastern SUNBOW
boundary as a four lane major street (80 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage, curb,
sidewalks, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$6,782,000
Project Location:
Q
II:
(^,
I '
...--, t, !
· ---J I
: ,-J
,,""'-' ,
\ ," I
v ,
,
I
I
I
L__
-...,
//
~D. ,
,
,
,
It ,J
"
".
~ ,
S ,
~ _....-, {
--~~ \ (
OIl"'IlGE \ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\1
...
o
..
I
1'13 ~7~
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-54-
052093
EAST PALOMAR STREET
1-805 TO EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Surface Improvements $ 1,520,000
Grading 2,078,000
Dry Utilities 982,000
Traffic Signal 312,000
Landscape 281.000
Subtotal $ 5,173,000
II. 15% Contingency $ 776.000
Subtotal $ 5,949,000
III. 6 % Design $ 357,000
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 357.000
Subtotal $ 6,663,000
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 119.000
TOTAL $ 6,782,000
USE ~ 6.782.000
/t/!J-77
LDT:SBIBUXTQNITRANSDIF .NAR
-55-
052093
PROJECT NO. 18
PHASE IV
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
EASTERN BOUNDARY OF EASTLAKE I TO HUNTE PARKWAY
Project Description:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road from eastern Boundary of Eastlake
I to Hunte Parkway to a six-lane prime street (104 feet curb to
curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, curb, sidewalk, and street lighting. Improvements will
require additional land acquisition.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, ,
,--, ~ 1
; --....J ,
, ,-J
\ ,- -" ,
\ " ,
Y I
I
,
,
,
L__
-..,
//
,
I
,
I
It ,J
JIi. /
~ ,
S ,
~
"W ...."'" I
....- , ,
-""~E- \ I
OIU'IlGE \ l
\ ,
\ ,
\J
",0.
life -?y
LDT,SBIBUXTON/TRANSDlF .NAR
-56-
052093
I.
II.
PHASE IV
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
EASTERN BOUNDARY OF EASTLAKE I TO HUNTE PARKWAY
COST ESTIMATE
Construction Costs & Incidentals
2 % DIF Support
TOTAL
1) Final Cost is from Eastlake Greens Assessement District No. 90-3.
Jifj/7j
LDT:SBfBUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-57-
Estimate
January 1992
$ 3,320,748
67.770
$ 3,388,518
052093
PROJECT NO. 19
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO
EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
Project Description:
Construct EastIake Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to
EastIake High School Southern Boundary as a four-lane major
street (80 feet curb to curb). Improvements to include grading,
pavement, drainage facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and
street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
c:i
II:
(",
, '
...--, ~ f
, ---J ,
,
, ,-J
,.... -' ,
\,...... ,
,
,
,
,
,
L__
-.,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,J
,/
,
,
I
,
I
I'
\ ,
\ ,
, ,
\;
/1 f) /''50
LDT,SBIBUXTON/TRANSDIF.NAR
-58-
OS2093
I.
II.
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO
EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
COST ESTIMATE
Total construction cost & incidentals
2 % DIF Support
TOTAL
1. Final cost is from Eastlake Greens Assessment District 90- 3 .
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
/1(5/2/
-59-
Estimate
October, 1991
$ 1,845,963
37.673
$ 1,883,636
052093
PROJECT NO. 20
HUNTE PARKWAY
PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
Project Description:
Construct Hunte Parkway from Proctor Valley Road to Telegraph
Canyon Road as a four-lane major street (80 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage facilities,
curb, sidewalk, street lighting, and right-of-way acquisition.
Cost Estimate:
$4,395,000
Project Location:
ci
0:
(^',
I '
_-, L, 1
,. ---J I
: ,...J
\ ",,--" I
\ "","" I
Y I
I
I
I
I
L__
-..,
,.II
I
I
I
I
I
r1
,/
,
,
I
,
,
\ t'
\ I
\ ,
\ I
\;
'"
o
lD
I
IL(fJ / fJ
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-60-
052093
HUNTE PARKWAY
PROCTOR V ALLEY ROAD TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
TOTAL
$ 2,669,700
400.300
$ 3,070,000
$ 184,200
184,200
$ 3.438.400
$ 895,000
$ 61.400
$ 4,394,800
$ 4.395.000
I. Public Improvements
II. 15 % Contingency
Subtotal
III. 6% Design
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration
Subtotal
V. Right-of-way acquisition
VI. 2% DIF Administration
USE
1. Cost estimate includes right-of-way acquisition for the portion off-site of Salt Creek
Ranch.
I 'f(J-- 2f i
LDr:SB/BUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-61-
052093
PROJECT NO. 21
HUNTE PARKWAY
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO CLUB HOUSE DRIVE
Project Description:
Construct Hunte Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to Club
House Drive as a four lane major street (80 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage facilities,
curb, sidewalk, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
Project complete.
Project Location:
c:i
II<
^
( "
, )
...--, ~ ,
, --....J ,
: ,-J
\ ",--' ,
, ",'" ,
Y I
,
,
,
,
L__
-..,
/'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
~o.
\ E"S'T
..
".
~
~
~ _""\
-"'" ,
_-~E. \
OR"tlGE \ J
\ (
\ '
, \
\l
~
o
!>>
,
-
\ 7'
\ E'I.E'GRAP~
(
) '-/!S -fJ5
LDT:SBiBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-62-
052093
HUNTE PARKWAY
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO CLUB HOUSE DRIVE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
November 1991
TOTAL
$ 1,226.273
25.026
$ 1,251,299
I.
II.
Total construction cost & incidentals
2 % DIP Support
1. Pinal cost is from Eastlake Greens Assessment District 90-3.
) Lj!J -7&
LDT,SB/BUXTONITRANSDlF .NAR
-63-
052093
PROJECT NO. 21A
HUNTE PARKWAY
CLUB HOUSE DRIVE TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
Project Description:
Construct Hunte Parkway from Club House Drive to East Orange
A venue as a four lane major street (80 feet curb to curb).
Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage facilities,
curb, sidewalk, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$1,250,000
Project Location:
ci
ac
'"
( "
, )
r--' ~ ,
, --...J ,
, r-J
",,---' ,
\..,;'" ,
I
,
,
,
,
L__
-....,
'IP-\,.\.E)- ".-II
I
,
,
,
,
It ,J
!Ii. /
~ ,
Ik '
"W _"'" I
....- , l
_....~E. \ I
ORANGE \ t'
\ I
\ l
\J
RO.
III
o
..
,
-
\ EP-S~
/t/!3 -~?
LDT;SB/BUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-64-
052093
HUNTE PARKWAY
CLUB HOUSE DRIVE TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvement $ 953,800
II. 15 % Contingency 143.800
$ 1,096,600
III. 6% Design $ 65,800
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 65.800
Subtotal $ 1,228,400
V. 2 % DIF Administration 22.000
TOTAL $ 1,250,400
USE $ 1.250.000
J'-/ (j ~g2f
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-65-
052093
PROJECT NO. 22
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
EASTLAKE PARKWAY TO HUNTE PARKWAY
Project Description:
Construct East Orange A venue as a six lane lane prime arterial
(104 feet curb to curb), from Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway.
Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage, curb,
sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$6,356,000
Project Location:
,,0.
(",
, ,
..--, ~ ']
· ---J ,
: ,-J
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
L_ .
- - ...,
/"
,
,
,
,
,
,J
/
,
,
I
,
I
\ l
\ I
\ ,
\ ,
\;
-
Q
a:
......'"
\
\ ,,"" - ,
\ ,,;-'
v
'"
o
'"
,
-
ORANGE
Jye -Yi
LDT,SBIBUXTONrrRANSDlF .NAR
-66-
052093
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
EASTLAKE PARKWAY TO HUNTE PARKWAY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 4,847,400
II. 15 % Contingency $ 727.000
Subtotal $ 5,574,400
III. 6% Design $ 334,500
IV. . 6% Inspection and Administration 334.500
Subtotal $ 6,243,400
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 112.000
TOTAL $ 6,355,500
USE $ 6.356.000
/ '-I(J -; ()
LDT,SB/BUXTON/TRANSDlF .NAR
-67-
052093
PROJECT NO. 23
PASEO RANCHERO
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
PHASE I
Project Description:
Construct Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East
Orange A venue as a six lane lane prime arterial (104 feet curb to
curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage,
curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting. This project is to
be constructed in two phases. Only Phase I is included in this
report.
Cost Estimate:
Phase I
$3,388'000 .
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, '
,.--, . a, 1
, --...J ,
, ,-J
,""-' ,
\ .,;'" ,
y ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-...,
""....\.Ei- /'
,
,
,
,
,
,,0. It ,J
~. "
.~ ,
~ '
~ .........-, {
_.....~E- \ C
OIl"NG~ \ l
\ ,
\ ,
V
Q
o
CD
I
/t!!l/ I /
LDT:SBIBUXTONfTRANSDIF .NAR
-68-
052093
PASEO RANCHERO
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO EAST ORANGE AVENUE
PHASE I
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 2,584,000
II. 10% Contingency 387 .600
Subtotal $ 2,971,600
III. 6 % Design $ 178,300
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 178.300
Subtotal $ 3,328,200
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 59.400
TOTAL $ 3,387,600
USE $ 3.388.000
1. Original project was extended to the south to the new DIF boundary (proposed East
Orange Avenue Alignment).
2. Phase I cost estimate is for full grading, full landscaped median, 32 feet of pavement
each way and sidewalk. Phase II will be included later when additional development
warrants the construction of the required improvements to complete a six lane facility.
/ ~/!J ~9:J-
LDT:SBIBUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-69-
052093
PROJECT NO. 24
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY TO EASTLAKE PARKWAY
Project Description:
Construct East Orange Avenue from Eastern Sunbow boundary to
EastIake Parkway as a six lane prime arterial (104 feet curb to
curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$7,272,000
Project Location:
ci
&
(^',
, '
...--, ~ :
· ---J I
: r-J
",--' ,
\ ,;'" ,
v 1
1
,
1
,
L__
-..,
/'
1
1
1
1
1
,J
/
,
,
I
.\
I
\ t'
\ I
\ \
\ I
\)
~
o
..
,
-
L. '
....--l
IllfJ -j)
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-70-
052093
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY TO SR-125
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I.
Public Improvements (includes contingency) $ 6,379,000
6 % Design $ 382,700
6 % Inspection and Administration 382.700
Subtotal $ 7,144,400
2 % DIF Administration $ 127.600
TOTAL $ 7,272,000
USE ~ 7.272.000
II.
III.
IV.
1) This project is to be jointly fmanced by the Eastern Area Transportation DIF Program
and the Interim SR-125 fee program.
2) Cost estimate represents the portion of the street being included in the Eastern Area
Transportation DIF Program.
;ltJ-7i
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-71-
052093
PROJECT NO. 25
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
Project Description:
Provide operational improvements at the interchange of Interstate
805 and East Orange Avenue. Improvements to include ramp
widening, intersection widening and traffic signal installation east
and west of the freeway.
Cost Estimate:
$4,064,000
Project Location:
ci
tI:
(",
I "
..._-, t, 1
. ---J I
: ,-J
\ ...--' ,
\ ,,'" ,
v ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-.,
/'
,
,
,
,
I
,J
/
,
\
I
,
C
\ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,
'J
~o.
~
o
~
I
*
1/7 q"""-
/ L/:./ - 1->
LDT:SBfBUXTON1TRANSDlF .NAR
-72-
052093
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Total Construction Cost (Includes Contingency) $ 2,860,000
II. Preliminary Engineering 630,000
III. Construction Engineering 403.000
Subtotal $ 3,893,000
IV. 4 % Administration $ 114,000
V. 2 % DIF Project Administration $ 57,000
TOTAL $ 4,064,000
USE $ 4.064,000
) t/(J -'} '"
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-73-
052093
PROJECT NO. 26
EAST PALOMAR STREET
EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY TO PASEO RANCHERO.
Project Description:
Construct East Palomar Street to a four lane major street (80 feet
curb to curb) from the eastern Sunbow boundary to Paseo
Ranchero. Improvements to include grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$3,120,000
Project Location:
Q
a:
(A,
, ,
,--, ~ :
; --....I ,
, r-J
,--' ,
\ ".' ,
\.0 ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-.,
/1
,
,
,
,
~o. ~ ,.1
Ji. /
~ ,
S ,
~ I
_""",-, I
--~f- \ I
OIl..llGt: \ l
\ I
\ ,
V
oil
o
lD
,
jiL/!J-j7
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-74-
052093
EAST PALOMAR STREET
EASTERN SUNBOW BOUNDARY TO PASEO RANCHERO
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 2,380,000
II. 15 % Contingency $ 357 .000
Subtotal $ 2,737,000
III. 6 % Design $ 164,000
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 164.000
Subtotal $ 3,065,000
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 55.000
TOTAL $ 3,120,000
USE $ 3.120,000
/L/(J-i;5
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-75-
052093
PROJECT NO. 27
EAST PALOMAR STREET
ThITERSTATE805ThITERCHANGE
Project Description:
Construct a half diamond interchange on Interstate 805 at Palomar
Street (with ramps to and from the north). Improvements to
include intersection widening, grading, pavement, drainage
facilities, landscaping, traffic signal installation, and right-of-way
acquisition.
Cost Estimate:
$2,673,000
- . -..... ---...:--.
..
II:
l',
, "
..._-, ~ 1
f --....J ,
: ,...J
.,- - ~ ,
\ .,." ,
'" I
,
,
,
,
L_ .
-- ..,
/:
,
,
,
,
It ,.J
/
".
'II.., ,
~ \
~ ....--""'\ {
_....~~ \,
OIl"NGE \ I
\ I
\ '
\ ,
\J
* \VS'I'
/L/IJ -9;
LDT:SBfBUXTONn'RANSDIF .NAR
-76-
052093
EAST PALOMAR STREET
INTERSTATE 805 INTERCHANGE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvement $ 1,047,600
II. 15% Contingency 157.000
Subtotal $ 1,204,600
III. 6 % Design $ 72,000
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 72.000
Subtotal $ 1,348,600
V. Right of Way Acquisition $ 1,300,000
VI. 2 % DIF Administration $ 24.000
TOTAL $ 2,672,600
USE $ 2.673.000
Jf!J---J()tJ
LDT:SB/BUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-77-
052093
PROJECT NO. 28
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
HUNTE PARKWAY TO WUESTE ROAD
Project Description:
Construct Telegraph Canyon Road from Hunte Parkway to Wueste
Road as a four-lane major street (80 feet curb to curb). Improve-
ments to include grading, pavement, drainage improvements, curb,
sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$3,114,000
Project Location:
ci
a::
(^',
, '
,.--, L, 1
, --...J ,
, ,...J
",,--' ,
\ .;""
y I
I
,
I
I
I
L__
-...,
"...,,\..Ei- /'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
",0.
, EI'S1'
It
,.-
~
~
~
. ,...,...-,
-,...~E. \
OIlI'NGE \ ,
\ f
\ I
\ ,
\l
F/6-)O(
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-78-
052093
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
HUNTE PARKWAY TO WUESTE ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvement $ 2,375,000
II. 15 % Contingency --- 356.000
Subtotal $ 2,731,000
III. 6% Design $ 164,000
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 164.000
Subtotal $ 3,059,000
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 55.000
TOTAL $ 3,114,000
USE $ 3.114.000
Ii!] - /()d-.-
LDT,SBIBUXTON/TRANSDIF.NAR
-79-
052093
PROJECT NO. 29
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
HUNTE PARKWAY TO THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
Project Description:
Construct East Orange Avenue from Hunte Parkway to the
Olympic Training Center entrance as a four-lane major street (80
feet curb to curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement,
drainage facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$5,104,000
Project Location:
..
a:
"
( "
I )
...--, ~ ,
, ---J ,
: ,-J
\ ",--'" ,
\ ",'" ,
" ,
I
,
,
,
L_ .
-- ..,
\/I'\.oI..E)- /:
I
,
,
I
,..J
/
,
,
I
,
I
\ "
\ I
\ ,
\ I
\;
ltD.
..
o
.c
,
/16 ---JOY
LDT:SB/BUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-80-
052093
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
HUNTE PARKWAY TO THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvement $ 3,892,900
II. 15 % Contingency 583.900
Subtotal $ 4,476,800
III. 6 % Design $ 268,600
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 268.600
Subtotal $ 5,014,000
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 89.500
TOTAL $ 5,103,500
USE $ 5.104,OQ.0
1) Cost estimate includes transition from four-lane major to Class I collector in the vicinity
of East Orange A venue access to the Olympic Training Center.
Jt-/!J ~/t/i
LDT,SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-81-
052093
PROJECT NO. 30
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
SR-125 TO EASTLAKE PARKWAY
Project Description:
Widening of Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 toEastlake Parkway
from a six-lane prime arterial to an eight-lane prime arterial (128
feet curb to curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement,
drainage facilities, curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and
adjustment/relocation of existing utilities. Project also includes
intersection improvements and traffic signal modifications.
Cost Estimate:
$1,493,900
Project Location:
ci
II:
l',
, ,
,.--, t, 1
~~ --~ ,
\ : ,-J
\ ,.--' ,
\ ,." ,
v ,
,
,
,
,
L_ .
----,
/1
,
,
,
,
,,0. It ,J
/
"'.
~ I
S ,
~ I
.... ,...-...., I
_-~E. \<<
o,,"IlG~ \ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\J
.-/
J 1 {J -)tJp
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF .NAR
-82-
OS2093
TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
SR-125 TO EASTLAKE PARKWAY
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 1,139,600
II. 15 % Contingency $ 170.900
Subtotal $ 1,310,500
III. 6% Design $ 78,600
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 78.600
Subtotal $ 159,200
V. 2 % DlF Administration $ 26.200
TOTAL $ 1,493,900
USE $ 1,493.900
!Lj[!-ltJ~
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-83-
052093
PROJECT NO. 31
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
FENTON STREET TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
Project Description:
Widening of Eastlake Parkway from Fenton Street to Telegraph
Canyon Road from a four-lane major street to a six-lane prime
arterial (104 feet curb to curb). Improvements to include grading,
pavement, drainage facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, and
adjustment/relocation of e~isting utilities.
Cost Estimate:
$980,400
Project Location:
c::i
II:
("',
, '
...--, t, 1
· ---J ,
: ,-J
,- - '" ,
, " ,
y ,
I
,
,
,
L__
-...,
,.I'
,
I
,
,
I
,J
~
o
.I"
,
)f!J~JtJ7
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-84-
052093
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
FENTON STREET TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 747,800
II. 15 % Contingency $ 112.200
Subtotal $ 860,000
III. 6% Design $ 51,600
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 51. 600
Subtotal $ 103,200
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 17.200
TOTAL $ 980,400
USE $ 980,400
)18-/07
LDT:SB/BUXTONfTRANSDIF .NAR
-85-
052093
PROJECT NO. 32
EAST "B" STREET
INTERSTATE 805 TO HIDDEN VISTA DRIVE
Project Description:
Widening of East "W Street from 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive to
an eight lane prime arterial (128 feet curb to curb). Improvements
to include grading, pavement, retaining wall, drainage facilities,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and adjusting/relocation of
existing utilities. Project also includes intersection improvements
at the Hidden Vista Drive intersection.
Cost Estimate:
$901,000
Project Location:
ci
a:
(^',
I '
..--, ~ [
; --....J I
I ,-J
\ ",- -" I
\ ",' I
y ,
,
I
I
I
L__
-..,
,,~\,.\.Er /'
,
,
I
,
,
,,0... ,.J
/
..
~ ,
So ,
~ I
. ....--, ,
_....~f- \ (
O"",NGE \ t'
\ ,
\ ,
\J
o
o
..
l
-
/~/!f~J!)1
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-86-
052093
EAST "H" STREET
INTERSTATE 805 TO HIDDEN VISTA DRIVE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 687,100
II. 15 % Contingency $ 103.100
Subtotal $ 790,200
III. 6 % Design $ 47,400
IV. 6 % Inspection and Administration 47 .400
Subtotal $ 885,000
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 15.800
TOTAL $ 900,800
USE ~ 901,000
J1-/!l~J/;J
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-87-
052093
PROJECT NO. 33
OTAY LAKES ROAD
BONITA ROAD INTERSECTION
Project Description:
Improve the intersection at Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road.
Improvements include widening the westbound approach of Bonita
Road to provide an additional left turn lane.
Cost Estimate:
$105,000
Project Location:
c:i
Cl:
^
( "
, )
..._-, ~ I
, ---J ,
: ,-J
\ ;0--' ,
\ ",,;0 ,
Y ,
,
,
,
,
L__
--,
/'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
/
,
,
I
,
<<
\ l
\ I
\ ,
\ I
\;
'"
o
'"
,
/y!5 ~I / /
LDToSBIBUXTONrrRANSDlF.NAR
-88-
052093
OTA Y LAKES ROAD
BONITA ROAD INTERSECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 75,000
II. 15 % Contingency $ 11.300
Subtotal $ 86,300
III. 10% Design $ 8,600
IV. 10% Inspection and Administration 8.600
Subtotal $ 103,500
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 1.700
TOTAL $ 105,200
USE $ 105,000
;13-1/2
LDT:SB/BUXTQNrrRANSDIF.NAR
-89-
052093
PROJECT NO. 34
OTAY LAKES ROAD
ELMHURST DRIVE INTERSECTION
Project Description:
Widening of northbound and southbound approaches to Otay Lakes
Road to provide an additional through lane in each direction and
dual left turn northbound.
Cost Estimate:
$70,000
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, "
...--, ~ !
· ---J ,
,
, ,-J
\ ",--" ,
\ ,'" ,
"" ,
,
,
,
,
L__
-...,
'I I>-"\.. E;- /'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
/
,
,
I
,
,
\ l
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,
\)
'"
o
.~
,
/LJ(!-j IJ
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-90-
052093
OTA Y LAKES ROAD
ELMHURST DRIVE INTERSECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 50,000
II. 15 % ~ontingency $ 7.500
Subtotal $ 57,500
III. 10 % Design $ 5,800
IV. 10 % Inspection and Administration 5.800
Subtotal $ 69,100
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 1.200
TOTAL $ 70,300
USE $ 70,000
1) Cost estimate from Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan
/tJ8 -) /i
LDT:SB/BUXTON/TRANSDIF .NAR
-91-
052093
PROJECT NO. 35
EAST "B" STREET
OTAY LAKES ROAD INTERSECTION
Project Description:
Widening of eastbound and westbound approaches of East "B"
Street to provide an additional through lane in each direction.
Cost Estimate:
$221,000
Project Location:
o
'"
(",
, ,
,..--, ~ f
, --...,J I
\ ' r-J
, ........--' ,
,,'" ,
,
,
,
,
,
L__
-..,
"",-\oE;. ,--i'
,
,
,
,
,
~o. ~ ~
". /
~ I
I: '
~ ....--, {
-
-""",,~ \ I
ORANGE \ t'
\ I
\ ,
\1
J1v//~
LDT,SB/BUXTONrrRANSDlF.NAR
-92-
052093
EAST "H" STREET
OTAY LAKES ROAD INTERSECTION
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
1. Public Improvements $ 160,000
11. 15 % Contingency $ 24.000
Subtotal $ 184,000
III. 9 % Design $ 16,500
IV. 9% Inspection and Administration 16.500
Subtotal $ 217,000
V. 2 % DlF Administration $ 3.700
TOTAL $ 220,700
USE $ 221,000
1) Cost estimate from Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan
li(j ///~
LDT:SB/BUXTONffRANSDIF .NAR
-93-
052093
PROJECT NO. 36
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECTION
(EASTERN TERRITORIES)
Project Description:
Interconnect all traffic signals in the eastern territories to provide
a suitable progression for through traffic along the major circula-
tion streets. Installation of a centralized computer system to
monitor and coordinate the traffic signal operation in the eastern
territories and to optimize the timings at all intersections to provide
for an efficient traffic operation and reduced delays.
Cost Estimate:
$138,000
Project Location:
Major circulation facilities in the Eastern Territories.
c:i
a:
(",
I '
..._-, ~ 1
· ---J ,
: r-J
\ ",- -" ,
\ ",'" ,
"" ,
,
,
I
,
L__
-..,
/'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
RD.
~D.
\ E~S"
It
1>.
~ ,
~ \
"W ........-, t
_....~f.. \<<
OR-.llGE \ I
\ (
\ '
\ ,
\l
111
o
'"
I
Jl/IJ --//?
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-94-
052093
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECTION
(EASTERN TERRITORIES)
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 100,000
II. 15% Contingency $ 15.000
Subtotal $ 115,000
III. 9% Design $ 10,350
IV. 9% Inspection and Administration 10.350
Subtotal $ 135,700
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 2.300
TOTAL $ 138,000
USE $ 138.000
1) Cost estimate from Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan
/Ljj?-//%
LDT,SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-95-
052093
PROJECT NO. 37
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL SOUTHERN BOUNDARY TO
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
Project Description:
Construct Eastlake Parkway from Eastlake High School southern
boundary to East Orange Avenue as a four lane major street (80
feet curb to curb). Improvements to include grading, pavement,
drainage facilities, curb, sidewalk, landscaping and street lighting.
Cost Estimate:
$887,500
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, '
...--, L, 1
, ---J ,
: ,-J
\ ...--' ,
\ ....... ,
v I
I
,
,
,
L__
-..,
/'
I
I
I
I
I
,.J
/
,
,
I
I
(
i
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,
V
'"
o
..
,
/'-/!J / /J~
LDT,SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-96-
052093
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL SOUTHERN BOUNDARY TO
EAST ORANGE AVENUE
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
1. Public Improvements $ 667,000
II. 15 % Contingency $ 101.500
Subtotal $ 778,500
III. 6 % Design $ 46,700
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 46.700
Subtotal $
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 15.600
TOTAL $ 887,500
USE $ 887 .500
1) This project is to be jointly financed by the Eastern Area Transportation DIF Program
and the SR-125 DIF program.
2) Cost estimate represents the portion of the street being included in the Eastern Area
Transportation DIF Program.
o
lig /I)..()
LDT:SBfBUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-97-
052093
PROJECT NO. 38
EAST "H" STREET
PASEO DEL REV TO TIERRA DEL REV
Project Description:
Widen East "H" Street from Paseo Del Rey to Teirra del Rey to
provide operational improvements at Paseo Del Rey and Avila Way
intersections. Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb
and gutter, and sidewalk. Project includes:
Construction of right turn lanes on north side of East "R"
Street
Construction of right turn lane to Paseo Del Rey on south
side of East "H" Street
Widening of East "H" Street from Paseo del Rey to Tierra
Del Rey intersection
Cost Estimate:
$682,000
Project Location:
ci
II:
(",
, '
,..--, L, !
, ---.J ,
I ,-J
\ .,.--' I
\......,. ,
,
,
I
,
,
L__
-~
,,~....\..Er ,-II
,
I
I
,
,
It ,J
)00. /
~ ,
S ,
.",
"W _"'" I
.....- , ,
_.....~E- \ I
ORANGE \ l
\ I
\ ,
V
'10.
,",0.
'"
o
II
,
)I!J/)~J
LDT,SBIBUXTON/TRANSDlF.NAR
-98-
052093
EAST "H" STREET
PASEO DEL REV TO TIERRA DEL REV
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 520,000
II. 15 % Contingency $ 78.000
Subtotal $ 598,000
III. 6% Design $ 35,900
IV. 6% Inspection and Administration 35.900
Subtotal $ 669,800
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 12.000
TOTAL $ 681,800
USE $ 682.000
1) Cost estimate is from Rancho Del Rey Partnership.
) i/? ~ /~.2
-
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDlF.NAR
-99-
052093
PROJECT NO. 39
BONITA ROAD
INTERSTATE 805 TO PLAZA BONITA ROAD
Project Description:
Widening of the north side of Bonita Road from 1-805 to Plaza
Bonita Road to provide a right turn lane for the freeway. Improve-
ments include: grading, pavement, drainage facilities, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and relocation of existing utilities.
Cost Estimate:
$270,000
Project Location:
-
( "
I )
,..--1 t, ,
--....J I
,
I ,-J
,,""" - ~ ,
\ .,,; I
y ,
,
I
I
I
L__
-...,
>/,.....\.E/- /'
,
,
,
,
,
,J
,,0.
'"
o
!D
I
-
It
Joi.
~
I:
"W _"'"
,...- ,
_-~E- \
OR"llG~ \ J
\ I
\ I
\ ,
\1
JL!iJ - /~]
LDT:SBIBUXTONrrRANSDIF.NAR
-100-
071393
BONITA ROAD
INTERSTATE 805 TO PLAZA BONITA ROAD
COST ESTIMATE
Estimate
June 1992
I. Public Improvements $ 199,000
II. 15 % Contingency $ 29.800
Subtotal $ 228,800
III. 8 % Design $ 18,300
IV. 8 % Inspection and Administration 18.300
Subtotal $ 265,400
V. 2 % DIF Administration $ 4.600
TOTAL $ 270,000
USE ~ 270.000
/1:6 ~ /11
LDT:SBIBUXTONITRANSDIF.NAR
-101-
071393
PROJECT A
DIF PROGRAM SUPPORT
Project Description:
Four percent of the total estimated cost for projects 1 through 39
shall be designated for support of the DIF program. This includes
consultant's fees for annual updates of the report and the funding
of further studies or administration that might be necessary.
1) DIF program support percentage has been increased from 2% to 4% to reflect actual
costs incurred in performing general administration activities and studies.
1/1-/)5
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
-102-
052093
LDT:SB/BUXTONITRANSDIF .NAR
APPENDICES
Ordinance Nos. 2251,2289,2349, and 2431
/tJ!f..- /.l(P
-103-
052093
~ . OJ
..
.,.
0"
...,
,
. .,
Revised 1/7/83
'.
ORDINANCE NO. 2251
~
'-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN
TERRITORIES
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements require that adequate, safe transportation
facilities be available to accommodate the increased traffic
created by new development, and'
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new
development within the Eastern Territories will create adverse
impacts on the City's transportation system which must be
mitigated by the financing and construction of certain
transportation facilities identified in this Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a
reasonable means of financing the transportation facilities is to
levy a fee on all development in the Eastern Territories of the
City, and
WHEREAS, the fee has been justified by the financial and
engineering study entitled "Interim Eastern Area Development
( Impact Fees for Streets' dated November, 1987, and prepared by
George T. Simpson and Willdan Associates, and
WHEREAS, the financial and engineering stUdy and the
City's General Plan show that the transportation network will be
adversely impacted by new development wi thin the Eastern
Territories unless new transportation facilities are added to
accommodate the new development, and
WHEREAS, the financial and engineering study and the
City's General Plan establishes that. the transportation
facilities necessitated by development in the Eastern Territories
comprises an integrated network, and
WHEREAS, developers of land within the Eastern
Territories should be required to mitigate the burden created by
development through the construction of transportation facilities
wi thin the boundar ies of the development, the construction of
those transportation facilities outside the boundaries of the
development which are needed to provide service to the
development in accordance with City standards, and the payment of
a fee to finance the development's portion of the total cost of
the transportation network, and
"
-1- JL/!J-/~7
.
c
l.
~
t
\
,"
. ".
......
~. .'
" -
..
"
.,
;.
"
WHEREAS, all development within the Eastern Territories
contribute to the cumulative burden on the transportation network
in direct relationship to the amount of traffic generated by the
development, and
)
WHEREAS, the amount of traffic generated has been
determined based upon average daily trips for various land areas
based .upon studies conducted by SANDAG and verified by the
financial and engineering study prepared for the purposes of this
fee, and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG traffic generation determinations
have been used by numerous public agencies in San Diego County
for various purposes, including the preparation of General Plan
Circulation Elements, the justification of traffic impact fees,
and transportation planning, and have been determined to be _ a
reliable and accepted means of allocating the burden on a
transportation network to development to be served by the
network, and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1988, the City Council held a
duly noticed meeting at which oral or written presentations could
be made, and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1988, the City Council ordered
and approved a negative declaration and supporting documentation
regarding the proposed fee, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined based upon the
evidence presented at the meeting, the City's General Plan and
the various reports and other information received by the City
Council in the course of its business that imposition of the
traffic impact fee on all development in the Eastern Territories
for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary
in order to protect the public safety and welfare and in order to
ensure effective implementation of the City's General Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount
of the fee levied by this Ordinance does not exceed the estimated
cost of providing the transportation facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Establishment of Fee.
(al A development impact fee in the amounts set forth
in subsection (cl is hereby established to pay for
transportation improvements and facilities within
the Eastern Territories of the City. The fee shall
be paid before the issuance of building permits for
each development project within the Eastern
Territories of the City. The fees shall be
-2- /1(3 -/;27!
. .-
.
.
,~ 4'.
t
t
\
'-
"
.
..
'I
....
..
deposited into an Eastern Territories
Transportation Facilities Fund, which is hereby
created, and shall be expended only for the
purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director
of Finance is authorized to establish various
accounts within the fund for the various
improvements and facilities identified in this
ordinance and to periodically make expenditures
from the fund for the purposes set forth herein in
accordance with the facilities phasing plan or
capital improvement plan adopted by the City
Council. The City Council finds that collection of
the fees established by this ordinance at the time
of the building permit is necessary to ensure that
funds will be available for the construction of
facilities concurrent with the need for those
facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital
facilities budgeting for the Eastern Territories.
The fee established by this section is in addition
to the requirements imposed by other Ci ty laws,
policies or regulations relating to. the
construction or the financing of the construction
of public improvements wi thin subdivisions or
developments.
(c) The fee for each development shall be calculated at
the time of building permit application based upon
the following schedule:
(b)
Development Type Transportation Fee
Single Family $2101/Dwelling Unit
Detached Dwelling
Single Family $1681/Dwelling Unit
Attached Dwelling
Multi-Family $1260/Dwelling Unit
Dwelling
Commercial $B4,040/GrOSs Acre
Industrial $63,030/Gross Acre
The City Council shall annually review the amount
of the fee. The City Council may adjust the amount
of the fee as necessary to reflect changes in the
Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the
type, size, location or cost of the Transportation
Facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in
land use designations in the City's General Plan,
and upon other sound engineering, financing and
-3- JLjtJ-'/02.i
.. .
"
.'
l
\.
~(
~
, . .
" .
'"
"
planning information. Adjustments to the above fee
may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee
Schedule.
(d) The fees collected shall be used by the City for
the following purposes as determined by the City
Council :
1. To pay for the construction of facili ties by
the City, or to reimburse the City for
facilities installed by the City with funds
from other sources.
2. To reimburse developers who have been required
by Section 4 (a) of this ordinance to install
improvements that are major streets and are
listed in Section 3.
3.
To reimburse developers who
permitted to install improvements
Section 4(b) of this ordinance.
have been
pursuant to
SECTION 2: Definitions.
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words
or phrases shall be construed as defined in this
Section, unless from the context it appears that a
different meaning is intended.
(a) wBuilding permitW means a permit required by and
issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code as
adopted by reference by this City.
)
(b) wDeveloperw means the owner or developer of a
development.
(c)
WDevelopment PermitW
permit, entitlement or
project issued under
ordinance of the City.
means any discretionary
approval for a development
any zoning or subdivision
(d) wDevelopment projectW or wDevelopmentW means any
activity described in Sections 65927 and 65928 of
the State Government Code.
(e) wEastern Territoriesw means that area of the City
located between Interstate 805 on the West, the
City sphere of influence boundary on the East,
Bonita Road on the North, and the ridge line
between the extensions of Telegraph Canyon Road and
Orange Avenue on the South, as shown on the map
enti tIed W Area of Benefit and Street Project
Location (Map l) W of the financial and engineering
study.
-4-
IL/{J - / JD
"
l
~
'(
....
..
'.
"
.'
(f)' -Financial and engineering study: means the
- Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for
Streets: study prepared by George T. Simpson and
willdan Associates dated November, 1987, and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3: Transportation Facilities to be Financed by
the Fee.
( a)- The
fee
l.
2.
3.
4.
transportation facilities to be financed by the
established by this ordinance are:
State Route 125 from Otay Lakes Road to State
Route 54.
State Route 125 from Southern
boundary to Otay Lakes Road.
EastLake
Telegraph canyon Road from Interstate 805 to
paseo Ladera.
Telegraph Canyon Road from paseo
Otay Lakes Road. (Including
Improvements at I-80S).
Ladera to
Interchange
5. Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to
Eastern EastLake I boundaries.
6.
Otay Lakes Road from East -H- Street to Bonita
Road.
7. Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to
the southern fee area boundary.
8. Interchange improvements at Interstate 805 and
East -H- Street. -
9. East -H- Street through Rancho del Rey.
10. East -H- Street from Eastlake Drive to SR-125.
11. San Miguel Road from Bonita Road to SR-l25.
12. Central Avenue from Bonita Road to Corral
canyon Road.
13. Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Sweetwater
Road.
14. Sweetwater Road from Bonita Road to State
Route 54.
-5-
/Lj[J.-/31
..'
."
"
.'
"
~
~
15. Certain reconstruction and traffic management
systems within 'fee boundaries necessary to
ensure safe and efficient operations of the
traffic system.
(b) The City Council may modify or amend the list of
projects in order to maintain compliance with the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
SECTION 4: Developer Construction of Transportation
Facilities.
\
(a) Whenever a developer of a development project would
be required by application of City 'law or pOlicy,
as a condition of approval of a development permit
to construct or finance the construction of a
portion of a transportation facility identified in
Section 4 of this ordinance, the City Council may
impose an additional requirement that the
development install the improvements with
supplemental size, length or capacity in order to
ensure efficient and timely construction of the
transportation facilities network. If such a
requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in
its discretion, enter into a reimbursement
agreement with the developer, or give a credit
against the fee otherwise levied by this ordinance
on the development project.
(b) A developer may request authorization from the City
Council to construct one or more of the facilities
listed in Section 3. The request shall be made in
writing to the City Council and shall contain the
following informational conditions:
)
1. Detailed description of the project with a
preliminary cost estimate.
,
2. Requirements of developer:
preparation of plans and specifications for
approval by the City;
secure and dedicate any right-of-way
required for the project;
secure all required permits, environmental
clearances necessary for construction of
the project;
provision of performance bonds;
payment of all City fees and costs.
The City will not be responsible for any of
the costs of constructing the project. The
developer shall advance all necessary funds to
construct the project.
3.
-6-
Jig -/32-
.,'
."
r
C'
4.
G
6.
(
The developer shall secure at least three (3)
qualified bids for work to be done. Any extra
work or charges during construction shall be
justified and shall be documented.
When all work has been completed to the
satisfaction of the City, the developer shall
submit verification of payments made for the
construction of the project to the City. The
Director of Public Works shall make the final
determination on expenditures which are
eligible for credit or cash reimbursement.
The developer will receive a credit against
required Development Impact Fees at the time
building permits are issued for the
developers' project.
If the total construction cost amounts to more
than the total Development Impact Fees which
will be required for the developer's property,
then the amount in excess of Development
Impact Fees will be paid in cash when funds
are available as determined by the City
Manager, or a reimbursement agreement will be
executed.
SECTION 5: Procedure for Fee Waiver or Reduction.
Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses
proposed for a development project, contends that
application of the fee imposed by this ordinance is
unconstitutional, or unrelated to mitigation of the
traffic needs or burdens of the development, may apply
to the City Council for a waiver. or reduction of the
fee. The application shall be made in writing and filed
with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after
notic~ of the public hearing on bhe development permit
application for the project is given, or if no
development permit is required, at the time of the
filing of the building permit application. The
application shall state in detail the factual basis for
the claim. of waiver or reduction. The Ci ty Council
shall consider the application within sixty (60) days
after its filing. The decision of the City Council
shall be final. If a reduction or waiver is granted,
any change in use within the project shall subject the
development to payment of the fee. The procedure
provided by this Section is additional to any other
procedure authorized by law for protesting or
challenging the fee imposed by this ordinance.
\
-7-
)'-16-- )y;
(
t
\
.."
..,
SECTION 6: Exemptions.
Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt
from the provisions of this fee.
SECTION 7: Assessment Districts.
If an assessment or special taxing district is
established for any or all of the facilities listed in
Section 4, the owner or developer of a project may apply
to the City council for a credit against the fee in an
amount equal to the assessment or taxes paid.
SECTION B: Expiration of this Ordinance.
.
This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect
when the City Council determines that the amount of fees
which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the
cost of the transportation facilities or reimbursements.
SECTION 9: Time Limit for Judicial Action.
Any jUdicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought
within the time period as established by Government Code
Section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 10: Effective Date.
)
Pursuant to Government Code
ordinance shall become effective
its second reading and adoption.
Section 65962, this
sixty (60) days after
Presented by
6'J?7to fm by
11....777~~i.vdv..&77l/
....
Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney
of
3688a
-B-
;tJe-/Si
..
FIRST READ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
C CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, HELD January 12 . 19 M...., AND.
FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD Januarv 19 ..
19 88 . BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, TO-WIT:
AYES:
NAVES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Councilmen
Councilmen
CoLrIcilmen
Cox, Malcolm, Nader, Moore
None
McCandl1ss
Councilmen
lJ'nna
~l~
. . . yo of the. City Chula Vista
ATTEST -a.-,"~~< ~ qi:~r
t:?' City I k
" STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
-
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
ORDINANCE NO. 2251
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
DATED
,
~~~
~
""'"""""""""
CIW OF
CHUlA VISfA
"j
City Clerk
!'-16 -/3~
CC-660
Revised 1/6/89
-/ .
/--":"'LC (:-:y;.:
v
,
.
. .
ORDINANCE NO. 2289
t
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING ORDINANCE 2251 BY PROVIDING FOR DEFERRALS AND
ADDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, on January 19, 1988, the City Council enacted
Ordinance No. 2251 adopting a fee to be paid by developers of
land within the Eastern Territories to finance construction of
transportation facilities, and
WHEREAS, developers of
transportation facilities and
Development Impact Fees on new'
completion of the transportation
to the developer, and
land are constructing major
are also required to pay
building construction prior to
facility creating a double cost
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2251 currently provides for a
credit after completion of a transportation facility improvement
and therefore it is necessary to amend Ordinance No. 2251 to
permit a procedure for requesting an early credit for Development
Impact Fees resulting from construction of facilities by
developers, and
~
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make other minor changes to
Ordinance 2251 in order to assure effective financing of the
transportation facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received evidence
justifying the addition of traffic signals at the intersection of
East "HO Street and the entrance to Southwestern College to the
list of improvements to be financed by the fee in orner to
implement and maintain compliance with the Circulation Element of
the City General Plan, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2251 authorizes the City Council
to amend or modify the list of projects to be financed by the
fee, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the findings and
determinations made in Ordinance No. 2251 ~ontinue to be true and
correct, and further that the amendment made by this ordinance
will further the purpose~ of Ordinance No. 2251.
NOW, THEREFORE, the. Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Chula
Vista does ordain as;follows:
SECTION I: Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended
to read:
c
\
"1.
c-
-1- JLJil-j3k
0'
( .'
,
SECTION 3: Transportation Facilities to be Financed by
the Fee.
o(
(a) The transportation facilities to be financed by the
fee established by this ordinance are: .
1. State Route 125 from Otay Lakes Road to State
Route 54.
2.
State Route 125 from Southern
boundary to Otay Lakes Road.
3. Telegraph Canyon Road from Interstate 805 to
paseo Ladera.
EastLake
4.
Telegraph Canyon Road from paseo
Otay Lakes Road. (Including
Improvements at I-B05).
Ladera to
Interchange
5. -, Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to
Eastern EastLake I boundaries.
6. Otay Lakes Road from East "H" Street to Bonita
Road.
7.
Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to
the southern fee area boundary.
{.
8.
Interchange improvements at Interstate B05 and
East "H" Street.
9. East "H" Street through Rancho del Rey.
10. East "H" Street from Eastlake Drive to SR-125.
11. San Miguel Road from Bonita Road to SR-125.
12. Central Avenue from Bonita Road to Corral
Canyon Road.
13. Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Sweetwater
Road.
14. Sweetwater Road from Bonita Road to State
Route 54.
15. Certain reconstruction and traffic management
systems within fee boundaries necessary to
ensure safe and efficient operations of the
traffic system.
\
Traffic siqnals on East "H" Street at the
entrance of Southwestern Colleqe.
-
'-
.!E..
-2- J'I8~/37
. ,
l/
\
\
to read:
.._~
(b) The City Council may modify or amend the list of
projects in order to maintain compliance with the
Circulation Element o~ the City's General Plan.
SECTION II: Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended
SECTION 4: Developer Construction of Transportation
Facilities.
(b)
ltl"
1. Detailed description af the project with a
preliminary cost estimate. That portion of
the pro;ect which involves the specified
improvements authorized by Section 3 of
Ordinance No. 2251 is referred to herein as
the Transportation Facility Proiect.
2. Requirements of developer:
-3-
ll(5//J~
l
~
.h
!.:.
\
preparation of plans and specifications for
approval by the City;,
secure and dedicate any right-of-way
required for the project;
secure all required permits, environmental
clearances necessary for construction of
the project;
provision of performance bonds (where the
developer intends to utilize provisions for
immedia te credi t, the performance bond
shall be for 100 percent of the value of
the project);
payment of all City fees and costs.
3. The Ci ty will not be responsible for any of
the costs of constructing the project. The
developer shall advance all necessary funds to
construct the project.
4.
The developer shall secure at least three (3)
qualified bids for work to be done.' The
construction contract shall be qranted to the
lowest qualified bidder. If qualified, the
developer mav aqree to oerform the work at a
price equal to or .less than the low bid. Any
claims for additional payment for extra work
or charges during construction shall be
justified and shall be documented to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The developer shall provide a de'tailed cost
estimate which itemizes those costs of the
construction attributable to the
Transportation FaCility Project and excludes
any work attributable to a soecific
subd i vision proiect. The est imate is
preliminary and subiect to final determination
by the Director of Public Works upon
completion of the Transportation FaCility
Project.
Upon approval of the estimated cost by the
Director of Public' \'lorks, the developer shall
be entitled to immediate credit for 75 percent
of the estimated cost of the construction
attributable to the Transportation Facilitv
Proiect. The immediate credits shall be
applied to the developers" obligation to pay
fees for buildinq permits issued after the
establishment of the credit. The developer
. .
-4-
/ L-j{]- OJ
)
(
{
c
. .
l.,'"
'/J/
'.
\
L.
8.
shall specify these bUilding permits
the credit is to be applied at the
developer submits the building
applications.
to which
time the
permit
If the developer uses all of the 75 ~ercent
immediate credit before final complet1on of
the Transportation Facility Proiect, then the
developer may defer payment of Development
Impact Fees for other buildinq permits by
providing to the City liquid security such as
cash or an irrevocable letter of credit, but
not bonds or set-aside letters, in an amount
equal to the remaining 25 percent of the
estimated cost of the Transportation Facility
Project.
When all work has been completed to the
satisfaction of the City, the developer shall
submit verification of payments made for the
construction of the project to the City. The
Director of Public Works shall make the final
determination on expenditures which are
eligible for credit or cash reimbursement.
9.
After final determination of eligible
expenditures has been made by the Puhlic Works
Director, the final amount of Development
Impact Fee credits shall be determined. The
developer shall receive credit against the
deferred fee obligation in an amount equal to
the difference between the final expenditure
determination and the amount of the 75 percent
immediate credit used if any. The amount of
the deferred fee obliqations shall be baserl
upon the fee fee schedule in effect at the
time of the final credit determination. The
Director of Public Works shall convert the
credi t to an EDU basis for residential
development and/or a Gross Acre basis for
commercial or industrial development. The
City shall notify the developer of the final
deferred fee obliqatiorr, and of the amount of
the applicable credit. If the amount of the
applicable credit is less than the deferren
fee obligation, then the developer shall have
thirty (30) days to pay the deferred fee. If
the deferred fees are not paid within the
thirty-day period, the Citv may make a rlemand
against the liquid security anrl apply the
proceeds to the fee Obligation.
-5-
JI{)-JL/O
, .
"
l
", 10. The developer will receive a lli credit
against required Development Impact Fees
incrementally at the time'building permits are
issued for the developers' project.
t
If the total construction cost amounts to more
than the total Development Impact Fees which
will be required for the developer's
ptrJpr!t't"i project, then the amount in excess
of Development Impact Fees will be paid in
cash when funds are available as determined by
the City Manager, ~t a reimbursement
agreement will be executed: or the developer
may waive reimbursement and use the excess as
credit aqainst future Development Impact Fee
obligations.
SECTION III:
amended to read:
Section 7 of Ordinance No.
2251 is
SECTION 7: Assessment Districts.
\
If any assessment or special taxing district is
established for any or all of the facilities listed in
Section 3, the owner or developer of a project may apply
to the City Council for a credit against the fee in an
amount equal to the developments attributable portion of
the 4tt~tt~~d~/Ani/~/PAi~ cost of the authori7.ed
TiiiProvements as determined by the Director of Public
Works, plus incidental costs normally occurring with a
construction project, but excluding costs associated
with assessment district proceedings or financinq.
r
'-
SECTION IV: Time Limit for Judicial Action.
Any jUdicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set
aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought
within the time period as established by Government Code
Section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION V: Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days
after its second reading and adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
3688a
//\L) \' I
\(j/ ;''?/:7J!/t-~.iJ?tt./x:,J
Thomas J.)I~ron, City Attorney
- I
( ,
~/
c
-6-
/'/13- pi;
.
"
f
l..
FIRST READ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA1 CALIFORNIA1 HELD January 10 . 19 ~I AND
FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD January 17
19 89 . BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE1 TO-WIT:
AYES: Councilmen: Moore. McCandl1ss, Nader, Cox, Malcolm
.
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Councilmen:
CoI.rlcilmen :
Councilmen:
None
None
None
ATTEST
~ ~~Ry ~Chom .."
~~;'J~~~~
~ City Clerk
,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
)
) 55..
)
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK 01 the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
2289
ORDINANCE NO.
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
DATED
'-
City Cierk
/i!5 -/y;2..
","
Revised 12/13/89
"
'-
ORDINANCE NO. 2349
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2251, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE
CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES
WHEREAS, in January, 1988, the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista adopted Ordinance No. 2251 establishing a
development impact fee for transportation facilities in the City's
eastern territories, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251, the City has
commenced the collection of development impact fees to be used to
construct transportation facilities to accommodate increased
traffic generated by new development wi thin the City's Eastern
Territories, and
I,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section l(c) of Ordinance No. 2251
and California Government Code SectiQns 66000, et. seq., the City
Council has caused a study to be conducted to reanalyze and
reevaluate the impacts of development on the transportation system
for the City's eastern territories and, to further reanalyze and
reevaluate the development impact fee necessary to pay for the
transportation facilities which financial and engineering study
prepared by Municipal Finance Administration and Willdan
Associates, is entitled "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for
Streets" dated November 22, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the financial and engineering study and the
City's General Plan show that the transportation network will be
adversely impacted by new development wi thin the eastern
territories unless new transportation facilities are added to
accommodate the new development, and
WHEREAS, the financial and engineer ing studies and the
City's General Plan establish that the transportation facilities
necessitated by development in the eastern territories comprise an
integrated network, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that developers
of land within the eastern territory should be required to
mitigate the burden created by development through the
construction of transportation facilities within the boundaries of
the development, the construction of those transportation
facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are
needed to provide service to the development in accordance with
City standards and the payment of a development impact fee to
. finance the development's portion of the costs of the
transportation network, and
(
/Lj(j ~)Lj}
-1-
~
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby
legislative findings and determinations set
NO. 2251 continue to be true and correct, and
determines
forth in
that the
Ordinance
WHEREAS, on December 12, '1989-, the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed meeting at which oral or
written presentations regarding the development impact fee for the
City's ,eastern territories could be made, and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented
to it incl,l!ding the eastern areas development impact fees for
streets study the City Council determined that certain amendments
to Ordinance No. 2251 are necessary in order to assure that there
are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation
facilities necessary to serve the eastern territories and in
addition that certain additional facilities should be added to the
list of those facilities by the development impact fee, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines, based on the
evidence presented at the meeting the City's General Plan, and the
various reports and information received by the City Council in
the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of
traffic impact fees on all development in the eastern territories
for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in
order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in
order to assure effective implementation of the City's General
Plan, and
( WHEREASJ the City Council has determined that the amount
of the amended fees as levied by this Ordinance does not exceed
the estimated cost of providing the transportation facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE the Ci ty Council of the City of Chula
Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1
That the development impact fee schedule set forth in
Section l(c) of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows:
Development Type
Single Family
Detached Dwelling
Transportation Fee
$t1g1 j2850/Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Attached Dwelling
Multi-Family
Dwelling
$1~i1 ~2280/Dwelling Unit
$1t~g j17l0/Dwelling Unit
(
Industrial
$il/glg jl14,OOO/Gross Acre
#~1,g1g jS7,OOO/Gross Acre
Commercial
;i(j - /L-jLj
-2-
(
The City Council shall at least annually review the
amount of the fee. The city Council may adjust the
amount of the'fee as'necessary to reflect changes in the
Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the type,
size, location or cost of the Transportation Facilities
to . be financed by the fee, changes in land use
designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other
sound engineering, - financing and planning information.
Adjustments to the above fees may be made by resolution
amending the Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 2. That the definition of 'Financial and
Engineering studies" as set forth in Section 2f of Ordinance No.
2251 is amended to read as follows:
'Financial and engineering _~~~l studies': means the
'Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for
Streets'f study prepared by George T. Simpson and
Willdan-Associates dated November 1987, and the 'Eastern
Area Development Fees for Streets' study prepared by
Municipal Finance Administration and Wil1dan Associates
dated November 22, 1989, both of which _~~ are on
file in the office-of the- City Clerk". ---
SECTION 3. That the list of facilities and programs
set forth in Section 3(a) of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read
as follows:
'(a) The transportation facilities and programs to be
financed by the fee established by this Ordinance are:
~tjt~/~AtA/~~~v~/tt~~/~/IV~~~/~~j~/~f.rV~~/~~~t~
HI
~tjt~/~~/l~$//fv~~/~/tj_ttj~~/~~~~tt.1/~//~tjt
tjK~_/~~j~1
State Route 125 from Telegraph canyon Road to Orange Avenue.
1~l~stj~~/~j~1~~/~~j~/tt~~/trit~t_t~t~/Sg1/~~/1j_~~/t~~~tjl
to east of Pas eo
1~t~~tj~~//~t~y~~/~~t~/~/~~/tAAAtA//t~//~t~e//ij~~~
~~~~I//Jt~~t~~t~S/trit~t~~jris~/t~pt~;~~~rit~/~t/tfSg1JI
Telegraph Canyon Road at I-80S interchange/phase II.
/ifg-/~
-3-
.
.
'I ~t.Ylt~~~t/~~~/~~~~~At~~~/rtt~tt~/tt.t~.~~
1./Y,~Ii,.".tU.I-.
'-
4.
-
'1
5.
6.
7.
il
B.W
'JI
9.
lo.n
(
11.
It/
12.
131
13.
14.
14.
1S/
Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase I Rutgers Avenue to EastLake
Boundary.
~tit/~iK~_/~~i~/tt~~/tt_tl'~'I$tt~~tlt~/~~nttt/~~i~I
Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II Paseo Ladera to Apache
Drive.
--TelegraphCcanyon Road - Phase III Apache Drive to Rutgers
Avenue.
East .fl. Street - I -B05 Interchange Modifications.
1.,.t~tt~.,.s~ll~v~~~~~/~/1.,.t~t.ttt~/~~/~/~tl/'~'
$tt~~tI
East -fl" _ St~ee~'from Eas!:.!-ak_~_ Dri_y-e':-j:O::SR-1~5 :--
- -
---"-..-
- -
ta.t/'~Y7Stt~~t~l~0~/~n~~~7~ir/~~tl
Ota~ Lakes Road from Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback
Roa .
Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the southern
fee area boundary.
Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue.
~~,.ttar/xY~n~~/tt~~/~~n!ta/~~a"/t~/~~ttal/~."y~,./~~."1
Bonita Road from Central Avenue to San Miguel Road.
~~riit./~~i~/tt~~/~tat/~aK~./~~a"lt~/$~~~t~it~t/~~i~I
Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to SR-125.
Sweetwater Road from Bonita Road to State Route 54.
East 'H' Street from State Route 125 to San Miguel Road.
~~ttai,./lt~~tvll~~~lltt~ttAtll~ll.y.ti~.
~lt~!rill~II~~~d~t(fttll~~~~Atblll~~II~rl~~t~II~II~rl"
~ttiti~,.t/~pit.ti~,../~tlt~iltt.ttitl.y.ti~I
15. East 'H' Street from San Miguel Road to Hunte Parkway.
16. Orange Avenue from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary.
17.
(
Palomar Street from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary.
/ tf!J - )'1 b
\
-4-
Telegraph Canyon Road from eastern boundary of EastLake to
Hunte Parkway.
bEas_t~~e_~~.rkWal'~rC?~ :Tel:~<;,-r~aph .Ca!lyon_ Roa.d t.!>__southern DIF
~~~...~[y .
Hunte Parkway from East "8" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road.
Hunte Parkway from Telegraph Canyon Road to Orange Avenue.
<YrangeAvenuerrciiii-tastLake--paikway to Hun~te Parkway.
paseo Ranchero Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to southern
DIF boundary.
SECTION 4
Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its
adoption, provided however, that the increased fees shall not be
applied to a residential development until 60 days fOllowing
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~f;j?;Z~d7Z/
~_JO P. LIPPITT,
;r -Director of Public Works
~ if':
~n;;dJ /'!-t~//?'-_.
~HOMAS J. HA~RON,
Oi ty Attorne'y/
I .'
I.c./___
(
6599a
"____..___..._______.._.. __"'._ - d_"_.. ____.- __...._...__.._.. -'-
,.
r
/ tl(!- PI?
-5-
--
L
ORDINANCE NO. 2431
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2251. RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE
CITY'S EASTERN TERRITORIES
WHEREAS. 'in January. 1988. the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista
adopted Ordinance No. 2251 establishing a development impact fee for
transportation facilities in the City's eastern territories. and
WHEREAS. pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251. the City has conmenced the
collection of development impact fees to be used to construct transportation
facilities to accommodate increased traffic generated by new development
within the City's Eastern Territories. and
WHEREAS. pursuant to Section l(c) of Ordinance No. 2251 and California
Government Code Sections 66000. et. seq.. the City Council has caused a study
to be conducted to reanalyze and reevaluate the impacts of development on the
transportation system for the City's eastern territories and. to further
reanalyze and reevaluate the development impact fee necessary to pay for the
transportation facilities which financial and engineering study prepared by
Wi 11 dan Associates. is entit1 ed MEastern Area Development Impact Fees for
Streets. dated November. 1990. and . ,
WHEREAS. the financial and engineering study and the City's General Plan
show that the transportation network will be adversely impacted by new
development within the eastern territories unless new transportation
facilities are added to accommodate the new development. and
WHEREAS. the financial and engineering studies and the City's General
Plan establish that the transportation facilities necessitated by development
in the eastern territories comprise an integrated network. and
-,------ .
{
, WHEREAS. the City Council has determined that developers of land within
the eastern territory should be required to mitigate the burden created by
development through the construction of transportation facilities within the
boundaries of the development. the construction of those transportation
(
)tf!J -/1%
Ordinance No. 2431
Page 2
)
facilities outside the boundaries of the development which are needed to
provide service to the development in accordance with City standards and the
payment of a development impact fee to finance the development's portion of
the costs of the transportation network, and '
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the legislative findings
and determinations set forth in Ordinance NO. 2251 continue to be true and
correct, and
WHEREAS, on Dec~2r 4, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
held a duly noticed meeting at which oral or written presentations regarding
the development impact fee for the City's eastern territories could be made,
and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including
the eastern areas development impact fees for streets study the City Councfl
determined that certain amendments to Ordinance No. 2251 are necessary in
order to assure that there are sufficient funds available to finance the
transportation facilities necessary to serve the eastern territories by the
development impact fee, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines, based on the evidence presented at
the meeting the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information
received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the
imposition of traffic impact fees on all development in the eastern
terri tori es for whi ch bufl di ng permi ts have not been issued is necessary in
order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in order to assure
effective implementation of the City's General Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the amended
fees as levied by this Ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of
_ __ ~rov'LdLng the transportation facfl ities.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1:
That the development impact fee schedule set forth in Section 1 (c) of
Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows:
p/(j ~)'-I1
l
Ordinance No. 2431
Page 3
. Development Type
Singl e Family
Detached Dwelling
Single Family
Attached Dwelling
Mul ti -Fami ly
Dwell ing
COllll1erc i a 1
Transportation Fee
$3060/Dwelling Unit
$2448/Dwelling Unit
$1836/Dwelling Unit
Industrial
Religious Institutional
$122,400/Gross Acre
$61,200/Gross Acre
$11,400/Gross Acre
(
The City Council shall at least annually review the amount of the fee.
The City Council may adjust the amount of the fee as necessary to. reflect
changes in the Engineering-News Record Construction Index, the type,
size, location or cost of the Transportation Facilities to be financed by
the fee, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and
upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information.
Adjustments to the above fees may be made by resolution amending the
Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 2. That the definition of "Financial and Engineering studies. as
set forth in Section 2f of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows:
"Fi nanci al and engi neering studies.: means the 'Interim Eastern Area
Development Impact Fees for Streets' studY prepared by George T. Simpson
and Willdan Associates dated November 1987, and the 'Eastern Area
Development Fees for Streets' stu~ prepared by Willdan Associates dated
November -19, 1990, which are on file in the office of the City Clerk".
SECTION 3. That the list of facilities and programs set forth in Section
3(a) of Ordinance No. 2251 is amended to read as follows:
"(a) The transportation facilities and programs to be financed by the fee
established by this Ordinance are:
F/CJ ~ I~f)
Ordinance No. 2431
. Page 4
)
1. S~ate Route-125 from-San-Miguel Road to Telegraph-Canyon-Road.-
2. State Route 125 from Tel egraph Canyon Road to Orange Avenue.
3. Telegraph Canyon Road from Paseo del Rey to east of Paseo
Ladera/north side.
Ja. Telegraph Canyon Road at I-80S interchange/Phase II.
4. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase I Rutgers Avenue to EastLake Boundary.
5. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase II Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive.
6. Telegraph Canyon Road - Phase III Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue.
7. East "H" Street - I -805 Interchange Modifications.
8.- East "H" Street from EastLake Drive to SR-125.
9.* Otay Lakes Road from Camino del Cerro Grande to Ridgeback Road.
10. Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the southern fee area
boundary.
11. Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to Central Avenue.
12. Bonita Road from Central Avenue to San Miguel Road.
13. San Miguel Road from Bonita Road to SR-125.
r-,
J4. East "H" Street from State Route 125 to San Miguel Road.
15. East "H" Street from San Mi guel Road to Hunte Parkway.
16. Orange Avenue from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary.
17. Palomar Street from Oleander Avenue to eastern DIF boundary.
/'-/(f-/j/
.
(-
\
-,
Ordinance No. 2431
Page 5
Telegraph Canyon Road from eastern boundary of Eastlake to Hunte
Parkway.
Eastlake Parkway -from Telegraph Canyon Road to southern DIF boundary.
Hunte Parkway from East "Ha Street to Telegraph Canyon Road.
Hunte Parkway from Telegraph Ca~on Road to Orange Avenue.
Orange Avenue from EastLake Parkway to Hunte Parkway.
Paseo Ranchero Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to southern DIF
boundary.
ENR Index Adjustment
DIF_ P.rpgram. SUPPQr~_ _ __ .. ____ _
*Project has been completed.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its adoption.
Presented by
Ap _" _d'~ to~b~ __
/1-)!3 - /~;l
Ordinance No. 2431
Page 6
1
PASSED. APPROVED. and ADOPTED by the City Counc11 of the City of Chula
Vista. California. this 11th d~ of December. 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Counc 11 members: McCandliss. Malcolm. Moore. Nader.
Rindone
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Counc 11 members: None
.
ABSTAIN: Counc11members: None
/(.i,.;.-,L 1}r-/;.~ ,c:tf'~
~le L. c~andI1ss. M~or
ATTEST:
~" ~av
ever y .( Aut -ele{; '~erk
. ..~. ti
:~
. ~t
. .
,--
STATE -OF CALfFORNfA--) -- - . -..--- .. .-.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista. California. do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2431 had its first reading on
December 4. 1990. and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of
said Ci~ Council held on the 11th d~ of December. 1990.
Executed this 11th day of December. 1990.
. ./
) LjO - b J
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
if"
Meeting Date 7/27/93
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Waiver of assessments and fees associated with
development of EastLake Community Church
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works rpJ S.
Director of Community J~pmentL-
Director of Planning '?i~(t
REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ ~~1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
The Redevelopment Agency purchased the property formerly owned by Chula Vista Missionary
Church on Orange Avenue in order to construct a new library. The church is requesting waiver of
fees associated with development of their new church facility in EastLake. In addition, the land has
assessments which were levied under Assessment Districts 88-1 and 85-2. EastLake Community
Church is requesting waiver of those assessments as well.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the report and deny waiver of any fees.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Under Section 3.45 of the Municipal Code, the City Council is required to consider fee waiver
requests if the amount of such waiver is greater than $2,500 or 25 % of the original fee imposed by
the Master Fee Schedule. Waiver requests of lower amount can be determined by the City Manager.
This request exceeds both. Total fees requested to be waived amount to $23,262 and the assessement
debt is $86,777 as of June 1993. They are requesting total waiver of all fees as well as assessment
district debt. A public hearing is required with notice to the applicant and to any party or parties
requesting same. The applicant has been notified. No other parties have requested notice. A notice
was posted by the City Clerk in City Hall.
The Redevelopment Agency purchased the Church's former property on Orange Avenue and Fourth
Avenue to construct a new library. The property was purchased for $1,300,000 which, according
to the purchase agreement, included $420,000 for relocation of church operations and facilities.
The Church, as indicated in their letter dated June 23, 1993 (attached), purchased property within
EastLake for their new facility, EastLake Community Church. That property has two assessments
levied on it. Assessment District 85-2 and 88-1 indebtedness on the property amounts to $42,497
and $44,280 respectively as of June, 1993. In addition, current City fees that must be paid if the
Church is to be built are:
I~I
/5
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 7/27/93
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Conditional Use Permit (PCC-93-24)
Design Review (DRC-93-20)
Initial Study (lS-93-22)
Building & Housing Permit
Sewer Administration
Sewer Capacity Fee
Traffic Signal Fee
Telegraph Canyon Sewer DIF
$ 350*
200*
1,100*
7,485
17
11,100
2,190
920
$23,262
TOTAL
Items 1-5 are processing fees. The other fees are user fees and are related to an impact to the City
other than staff costs.
The Church is requesting that those assessments and other fees be waived as a result of verbal
commitments purportedly made to them by the City at the time the City purchased the old church
site. Review of the files did not reveal any notes relating to payoff of the assessments or waiver of
fees. In fact, a letter dated February 21, 1991 (see Exhibit A) indicated what the fees might be for
a 2-acre parcel (the Church subsequently purchased a 3 acre site). There is no mention of the City
paying or waiving these fees and assessments in that letter. In addition, the escrow instructions and
notes about deal points contain no mention of fee waivers or payoff of assessments. Further, we
were unable to find any current City staff member who is aware of any suggestion that fees might
be waived.
Bonded indebtedness (assessments) cannot be waived by Council. In order to eliminate the yearly
payment, the assessment would have to be paid in total. Those assessments amount to a total of
$86,777 as of June 1993 as indicated above. Staff believes that there were adequate relocation funds
to payoff the amount if the church so chooses.
If staff costs are waived, the cost of processing these items would be borne by the General Fund.
Historically, those fees which the Planning Department requires for applications have been waived
by the City for non-profit corporations and are indicated by an asterisk above. However, in this
situation the property owner was given relocation assistance support which was intended to cover
costs such as the fees and bonded indebtedness.
Recommendation
The Municipal Code indicates that "prior to abating all or any portion of fee established in the
Master Fee Schedule, the Waiving Authority (Council) shall find a peculiar economic hardship or
other injustice would result to the application which outweighs, when balanced against, the need of
the City revenue and the need for a uniform method of recovering same from those against whom
it is imposed. "
Staff recommends that no fees be waived for this project for the following reasons:
I~' .2-
Page 3, Item I.>
Meeting Date 7/27/93
1. No economic hardship or injustice will result because tbe purchase of tbe previous site
included $420,000 for relocation assistance which was considered as compensation for fees,
assessments and otber costs of purchasing land and building a new church.
2. Assessments cannot be waived.
3. There is notbing in tbe files tbat indicated tbe City was to waive any fee or assessment.
If tbe Council would still desire to assist tbe Church, it is recommended tbat tbe processing fees
normally waived for churches be considered, which amounts to $1,650.
FISCAL IMPACT: None, if tbe recommendation accepted.
WPC F:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\EASTLAKE.CHU
072193
I.>-J /IS-'j
".
~~~
~
~- -
"
r, // '____
~/I
OlY OF
CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
February 21, 1991
Mike Livingston
Western District of the
Missionary Church
484 E. Los Angeles Ave.
Suite 228
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mike:
At your request, I have been researching applicable fees for development of
a 10,000 sq. ft. church on approximately two acres of land on EastLake Parkway
just north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Given these parameters, the figures
below should be close to your actual fees, however, you should be aware that
a change in the building square footage, the net acreage, or facilities in
addition to a church such as a school or day care center would significantly
change the figures below.
I. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
A. DIF Transportation - $22,800
B. Traffic Signal - $1,500
C. Public Facilities - exempt
D. Drainage - $8,000 (may be credited to you by EastLake)
E. Park - exempt
F. Sewer Capacity Fee - $7,000
G. Assessment District #85-2. Total Balance: $1,097,640.
Individual Parcel Assessments still to be determined.
H. Mello-Roos? (Check with EastLake)
II. PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
(Based on $56 per sq. ft., Type V, One-hour)
A. Building permit - $3,000
B. Plan Check - $2,000
C. Electric Plumbing/Mechanical Inspection - $1,000
D. SMI Earthquake Inspection - $100
III. PLANNING AND DESIGN REVIEW
A. Design Review - $500
B. Conditional Use Permit - $1,000
C. Initial Study - $500
D. Site Plan and Architectural Approval - $250
E. Sign Approval - $50
F. Landscape Plan Review - $150
TOTAL
$47,850
IY>'
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5047
......""'~.'.,
.
Mike Livingston
February 21, 1991
Page Two
.
I hope this information is sufficient. If you have any other questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
~
Lance Abbott
Community Development Specialist
LA: aqc
cc: Rev. John Oien, Missionary Church
15*'/'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,
~
---
.
.
"
DEAL POINTS FOR MISSIONARY CHURCH
(Draft II)
Below are proposed deal points between the City of Chula
Vista ("City") and the Missionary Church of ChulaVista
("Church") .
1. The City will pay to the Church the snm of $880,000 for
2.95 acres of land and all structu~es thereon, parcel number
623-010-15 (Exhibit "A").
2. The City will obtain for the Church and sell to the
Church for its use one of the following two properties; 1)
1.51 acres on Ridgeback Road (Exhibit "B"), or 2)
Approximately 2.5 acres of Public Use property now planned
for Rancho Del Rey Spa II (Exhibit "C"). The City shall
choose which parcel to sell to the Church.
3. For the parcel that the City chooses to sell to the
Church, the purchase price shall be as follows:
A. For the Ridgeback Road property, $550,000.
B. For the Rancho Del Rey property, $6.50 per square
foot, or the cost to the City of acquiring the
property, whichever is greater.
4. Relocation benefits provided to the Church in excess of
the $880,000 payed for existing Churuh property and
structures shall be as follows:
.
A. The City shall cooperate to provide the Church
. with facilities substantially equivalent to its existing
facilities. These facilities shall include
meeting/sanctuary space to accommodate the Church's current
membership, along with classroom and office space necessary
for the use of the Church membership.
B. The City and Church agree that these
"substantially equivalent facilities" shall be provided by
the least costly method available. The City may choose to
relocate the Church's existing structures to the new Church
site. If the City chooses to move these structures or
structure and to properly reconstruct them on the new Church
site, such actions on the part of the City shall meet the
City's obligation to cooperate in providing "substantially
equivalent facilities."
C. The City shall not be obligated to relocate,
remove or to provide the Church use of any structures
currently on Church property, or to rcovide the Church use
of structures now leased by the Church as residences.
15" 7
~ ~
-- -;.~~,.....
.
.
"
D. The Church shall use tne difference between the
price payed by the City for its existing site ($880,000) and
the price the Church pays for either of the two relocation
parcels identified above to cover relocation expenses.
E. If additional funds are required for the
successful relocation of the Church and provision of
substantially equivalent facilities at its new location, the
City shall pay $400,000, or any lesser amount that results
in successful relocation of the Church and provision of
substantially equivalent facilities, as relocation
assistance. This payment shall be accepted by the Church as
full payment for any and all relocation benefits required by
law.
5. The City shall have the option of relocating the Church
and its structures at any time within the 24 month period
commenqing February 1, 1991.
6. After purchase of the Church's existing property, the
City shall receive all rental income generated by the
property, including reasonable mark8~-rate rental of the
property and structures to the Church for its use while
. remaining on its current site.
.
.
.
,.
~ l
"
. I
.
15'~
~~'-
~
-y..........,
DEAL POINTS FOR LIBRARY PROPERTY PURCHASE
Missionary Church Property, 2.95 acres.
Total Payment/sf = $10.12
A) Payment for land at appraised value, $880,000.
B) Relocation Payment, $420,000.
C) One year free rent for church occupation of site.
D) Rents from two single family tenants will go to Agency.
E) Agency will be responsible for relocation of tenants.
F) Equal division of escrow and closing costs.
G) l80-day option to purchase city's Ridgeback Road site
for $500,000.
carter, .67 acres.
Total Payment/sf = $9.77
A) Payment for land at appraised value, $205,000.
B) Relocation payment of $80,000.
C) One year free rent for occupation of site.
D) City pays all escrow and closing costs.
E) Carter retains 200-day option to remove any structures
at his cost.
Torimaru, 2.43 acres. Total Payment/sf = $6.61
A) Payment for land at appraised value, $649,000.
B) Relocation payment, $51,000.
C) Agency pays all escrow and closing costs.
D) Torimaru retains 30-day option to remove structures at
his cost.
~~
\
'U
MEMORANDUM
,.
March 16, 1993
File # P A-CO2
TO: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
FROM: Bill Ullrich, Senior Civil EngineerL,la<1
SUBJECT: Fees for Church in Eastlake Business Center, 2341 Telegraph Canyon Road
In anticipation of constructing a church in the Eastlake Business Center, the owner has
requested waiver of fees associated with this development
The Engineering Section has calculated fees normally due at the time the building permit
is issued. These calculations are based on preliminary information, The seating in the
'church is 375 seats, and there are eight classrooms in the church building, The
calculations assume that the classrooms are used only for Sunday School and the
building area = 14,600 s.f.
\--.,/ EDU calculation: 1 EDU for each 110 seats or fraction of 110 seats; church = 4 EDU,
classrooms = 1.0 EDU, total = 5 EDU,
Ord. 2202' sewer facil,: 5 x $2,220 =
$11,100
~
Sewer Administration Fee =
$ 17
$ 920
$2,190
-
,
Telegraph Cyn Sewer Basin DIF 5 x $184 =
Traffic Signal Fee: 15 tripsj1,OOO s,f,; 15 x 14.6 x 10 =
: These estimated fees are based on current rates, The actual fees would depend on the
, final approved plans and the fee rates existing at the time the building permit
is issued.
The Transportation DIF and the Drainage DIF ara covered by Assessment Districts,
Those fees cannot be waived, See Donna Snider's memo attached. Any waiver of fees
must be requested in writing addressed to the City Engineer.
:JiU:dv jrb
lU
(HSB/CHURCH.f...)
15'-' II!)
1519 Via Hacienda,
Chula Vista, CA 91913
June 23, 1993
RECEIVED
'93 .D 23 P4:22
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
6194826772
j ",<:1':;'
The Honorable
Mayor Tim Nader
City Hall
276 Founh Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
6194828472
Dear Mayor Tim Nader:
It's a pleasure to write you with greetings from the EastLake Community Church.
We are happy to inform you of the progressive growth of our new congregation
and once again thank you for personally helping to launch our public ministry
January 24.
Recently we were able to close escrow on our three-acre land site in EastLake
(APN 595-232-12 and 13), and we are very excited about being able to someday
construct our multi-purpose facility on that site. We are discovering that many
doors of "pportunity for ministry and service to our community are being opened
for us, esp:;cially with the youth. This will be enhanced greatly when our facility
is complete and we are able to be readily available seven days a week,
One of our obvious concerns is the financial burden of constituting and
maintaining such a facility along with the many assessment and permit fees that
are required. For this reason we would like to request the City Council consider
waiving le Public Improvement Bonds Fund Assessment (85-2) as well as the
Assessment (88-1) Fund. In addition to the assessments, we have been told that
we should anticipate a Building Permit Fee of around $125,000. As you can see,
there are very costly expenses that are impeding our ability to go ahead with
construction.
"Lil'ing From
The Inside Out"
We do feel our request is valid, especially because of verbal commitments made
to us by the city at the time of purchase of our old Chula Vista Missionary Church
property on Orange Avenue. We were assured that the city would not only assist
us in finding new land to purchase, but also in the waiving of assessments and
fees to enable us to reconstruct our church facility.
@)
Man looks
:~:::~~l:~r~c"fj' ~ (J/) WRllTEN COMMUNICATION~
but the Lord . ~ ?/
looks at the heart. fl~..eT~ 0;, r~ r ~):y<}~
''''CH'' ~~ 5i7 ~2 ~~ 15/1/
We would ask that our request be placed on the council agenda in the near future.
We feel we have a unique opportunity to provide valuable service to the youth
and families in our community. We have established an excellent relationship
with the EastLake High School and feel our permanent facility will serve as a
youth center, especially for the many "latch-key" students who have no place to
go after school. We are also looking forward to a weekly program being .
established for the many "senior adults" of our neighborhoods. Our facility will
also serve as a center for such a program.
There are just a few reasons why we are eager to begin construction but find it
necessary to ask for waiver of some of the fees.
Again, if I could meet with you personally to further explain our request, I would
appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you so much for your continued support of our new church. I will await
your response.
Gratefully,
(2JP~
Bill Armstrong
Pastor
WFAIlm
1>"1:1-
ESCROW NO.
PARCEL NO. 623-010-15
PROJECT: South Chula Vista Library
NAME: Missionary Church
TITLE ORDER NO. 982373-7
OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY
AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
ORIGINAL
THIS OPTION is entered into this 12th day of February 1991, by and between THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter called
"BUYER"), and THE MISSIONARY CHURCH ASSOCIATION, WESTERN DISTRICT, the
undersigned owner(s), (hereinafter called "SELLER"), for the purchase by
"BUYER" of certain real property as hereinafter set forth.
IT IS MUTUALLY HEREBY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
In consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by BUYER to SELLER, the receipt of
whi ch is hereby acknowl edged, SELLER hereby grants to BUYER the excl us ive
option to purChase the herein described property situated in the City of Chula
Vista, County of San Diego, State of Cal ifornia, and legally described as
Ml~s: .
See legal description designated as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by
reference made a part hereof.
Commonly known and numbered as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel No.
623-010-15, and commonly known as 339, 341, and 365 Orange Avenue, Chula
Vista, California.
Said option may be exercised at any time prior to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard
Time February II, 1992, by delivering written notice of exercise of this
option addressed to SELLER at 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 228, Moorpark,
CA 93021. Said written notice shall be deemed del ivered to SELLER within 48
hours of the depositing thereof postage prepaid, certified mail, at any U.S.
Post Office in the State of California.
The total purchase price, payable in cash through escrow, shall be the sum of
ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS, ($1,300,000.00).
Within two business days from the day of delivery of notice of exercise of
this option to SELLER, 8UYER shall open an escrow at Mission Valley Escrow,
2565 Camino del Rio South, San Diego, CA 92108, (619) 295-7400, on the
following terms and conditions and SELLER and BUYER shall immediately execute
samej
SECTION II
I. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. SELLER agrees to convey to Grant Deed to BUYER,
marketable fee simple title to the property free and clear of all 1 iens
recorded and unrecorded, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and
taxes, EXCEPT:
A. Taxes from the close of escrows forward.
B. Quasi-public utility, public alley, public street easements and
rights-of-way of record.
2. TITLE INSURANCE POLICY. Escrow Agent shall, following recording of a
Deed to BUYER, provide BUYER with a CLTA Standard Coverage of Title
Insurance, in the amount of $1,300,000.00, issued by First American Title
Insurance Company, showing title to the property vested in BUYER, SUbject
only to the exceptions set forth in Section II Paragraph I of this
agreement, and the printed exceptions and stipulations in said policy.
BUYER agrees to pay the premium charged for this service.
If' I)
,-
3. ESCROW. BUYER agrees to open an escrow in accordance with this agreement
at Mission Valley Escrow, 2S65 Camino del Rio South, San Oiego, CA
92108, (619) 295-7400. This a9reement constitutes the joint escrow
instructions of BUYER and SELLER, and Escrow Agent to whom these
instructions are delivered is hereby empowered to act under this
agreement. The parties hereto agree to do all acts necessary to close
this escrow in the shortest possible time.
SELLER has executed and handed a Deed to BUYER, concurrently with this
agreement. As soon as possible after the opening of escrow, BUYER will
deposit the executed Deed, with Certificate of Acceptance attached, with
Escrow Agent on SELLER's behalf. BUYER agrees to deposit the purchase
price upon demand of Escrow Agent. BUYER and SELLER agree to deposit any
additional instruments as may be necessary to complete this transaction.
Insurance policies for fire or casualty are not to be transferred, and
SELLER will cancel his own policies after close of escrow.
All funds received in this escrow shall be deposited with other escrow
funds in a general escrow trust account(s} and may be transferred to any
other such escrow trust account in any State of National Bank doing
business in the State of California. All disbursements shall be made by
check from such account.
ESCROW AGENT IS AUTHORIZED AND INSTRUCTED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING
TAX ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE:
A. Pay and charge SELLER for any unpaid del inquent taxes and/or any
penalties and interest thereon, and for any del inquent or
non-delinquent assessments or bonds against the property:
B. Escrow is not to be concerned with pro-ration of SELLER's taxes for
the current fiscal year if this escrow closes between July I and
November I unless current tax information is available from Title
insurer between October I and November J. In the event said tax
information is available, SELLER's taxes shall be pro-rated in
accordance with Paragraph "C" below. From July I and the ensuing
period, when tax information is NOT available, referred to above,
SELLER's pro-rata portion of taxes due to close of escrow, shall be
cleared and paid by SELLER, outside of escrow, pursuant to
provisions of Section 5082 through 5090 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code of the State of California.
C. From the date that tax information is available, as per Paragraph
"B" above, up to and including June 30th, SELLER's current taxes, if
unpaid, shall be pro-rated to date of close of escrow on the basis
of a 365 day year in accordance with Tax Collector's pro-ration
requirements, together with penalities and interest if said current
taxes are unpaid after December 10 and/or April 10. At close of
escrow, a check payable to the County Tax Collector for SELLER's
pro-rata portion of taxes shall be forwarded to BUYER with closing
statement.
D. Any taxes which have been paid by SELLER, prior to opening of this
escrow, shall not be pro-rated between BUYER and SELLER, but SELLER
shall have the sole right, after the close of escrow, to apply to
the County Tax Collector of said County for refund of such taxes
which may be due SELLER for the period after the BUYER's acquisition
pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5096.7.
ESCROW AGENT IS AUTHORIZED TO AND SHALL.
E. Pay any amount necessary to place the title in the condition
necessary to satisfy Section II Paragraph I of this agreement and
charge SELLER upon SELLER's approval.
F. Pay any escrow fees charges and costs payable under Section II
Paragraph 4 of this agreement and charge them 50% to SELLER and 50%
to BUYER.
-2- 1~/1j .
.~
'-'\
G. Disburse funds and deliver Deed when conditions of this escrow have
been fulfilled by BUYER and SELLER.
The term "Close of Escrow", if and where written in these instructions,
shall mean the date necessary instruments of conveyance are recorded in
the Office of County Recorder.
Recordation of instruments delivered through this escrow is authorized if
necessary or proper in the issuance of said policy of title insurance.
All time limits within which any matter herein specified is to be
performed may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. Any
amendment of, or supplement to, any instructions must be in writing.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND ESCROW IS TO CLOSE AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
If (except for deposit of BUYER, which shall be made by BUYER upon demand
of Escrow Agent before close of escrow) this escrow is not in condition
to close within gO days from date of these instructions, any party who
then shall have fully complied with his instructions may, in writing,
demand the return of his money or property; but if none have complied, no
demand for return thereof shall be recognized until five (5) days after
Escrow Agent shall have mailed copies of such demand to all other parties
at their respective addresses shown in these escrow instructions, and if
any objections are raised within said five (5) day period, Escrow Agent
is authorized to hold all papers or documents until instructed by a court
of competent jurisdiction or mutual instructions. If no demands are
made, proceed with closing with escrow as soon as possible.
Responsibility of Escrow agent under this Agreement is expressly limited
to Section I and Section II Paragraphs I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, B, 10 and 12,
and to its liability under any pOlicy of title insurance issued in regard
to this transaction.
4. ESCROW FEES. CHARGES AND COSTS. BUYER and SELLER agree to evenly divide
and to pay all usual fees, charges and costs which arise in this escrow.
5. OCCUPANCY BY SELLER. SELLER warrants that there are no oral or written
leases on all or any portion of the property, and SELLER further agrees
to hold BUYER harmless and reimburse BUYER for any and all of its losses
and expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by
any tenant of SELLER. It is understood and agreed that SELLER may
continue in possession of the herein described property following close
of escrow for a period not to exceed 365 days, provided SELLER enters
into Rental Agreement with BUYER prior to the close of escrow. Said
Rental Agreement shall be in BUYER'S approved form and shall provide for
no rents to be paid to BUYER from close of escrow through the 365th day
following close of escrow.
6. PERMISSION TO ENTER ON PREMISES. SELLER hereby grants BUYER, or its
authorized agents, permission to enter upon the property at all
reasonable times prior to the close of escrow for the purpose of making
necessary or appropriate inspections.
7. COUNTERPARTS. This agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which so executed shall, irrespective of the date of its execution and
delivery, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
B. CLOSING STATEMENT. SELLER hereby authori zes and instructs Escrow Agent
to release a copy of SELLER's closing statement to BUYER; purpose being
to ascertain if any reimbursements are due SELLER.
9. SMOKE DETECTORS. SELLER hereby certifies under penalty of perjury that
smoke detectors are installed according to manufacturer's instructions in
each dwelling unit and are in full operating condition pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 13113.7 and local ordinances.
-3-
J5'/~
. ., Lu "'"ULV'V^,. Il1e property described In Partgraph 1
herelna~ove Is subject to a dIsclosure as designated under Section
2&3&9,7IOf the Health and Safely Codel whereby SELLER Is required to
disclos~ If there are any lIazardous substances located on or beneath the
property. It is understood and agreed between BUYER and SELLER that
closing lof this escrow Is subject to and contingent ufon receipt and
approval, of uld Disclosure Statement by aUYER. Said rev ew and approval
wfll no~ be unnecessarily withheld or delayed by BUYER.
11. ~ZAnDOUS.....lQXIC, ~~ OtHER WAfE OR SUBSTANCES BUYER and
SElLER miif(ijJly agree that SEL ER shall e solely responsIble for the
removal :and dispOSal of any and all hazardous, toxic, or other waste
substances stored or eXisting on or In or unoer the herein descrIbed
properti, and that any and all heurdous, toxic, or other wuh Or
.ubstanc,s shall be removed from the pl'emhes prior to tha close of
escrow, 'or date Of SELLER'I vacation of the heraln delcrlbed real
property, whlchover date first occurs.
i .
It is al~o understood end agreed that in the event SELLER fafls to remove
seld ha~ardous and/or toxlo materIel., BUVER Ihall dfspose of seld
materhl, at SELLER'I lole expense pursuant to 10Cll County. State or
Federal Jaws lnd regulations. SELLER agrees .to 'Indemnlfy an hold BUYER,
fts off1~ers and employees, harmless from any and all liability, costs,
fine,. penalties, cherge., attorney's fees and/or claim of any kind
whatsoev~r relating to the existence and removal of safd materIals.
12. Afcf~tANC$ OF THIS nCREtMFNT, It Is understood and agreed by SELLER that
c os ng 0 thll I$crow Is .ubJect to and contingent upon acceptance end
apprOVal ,by BUYER, Deposit into escrow of a fully executed copy of thU
Agroemen~ constitutes accept,nce and approve 1 by BUYER.
13. SELLER h~rebY reserves the' right to remove the structures and flxtur81
located n tho hereinabove described real property known as 339, 341, and
365 Oran e Avenue, on or before the 365th day after close of escrow.
Upon exe cillng said reserved right, SELLER covenants and agrees to
remove a 1 combustible materials arid other rubbish upon completion of
mOVing operations, leaving only concrete foundation and concrete flatwork
In phce, provided, .however that all mudsf11 steel tlebolts and
relnrorcipg steel protruding from said remaining concrete foundations,
shall be removed or sheared at all exposed surfaces of the concrete
foundatfohs, and In tha event there are holes or basements under any of
tho bUIldings removed, upon completIon of mOVing operations, SELLER Shall
construct, temporary barricadas around such holes or basements, to the
Htlsfact~on of the BUVER. for the purpose of protectfng pedestrians and
anfmah fjom falling i~to such holes and basements..
If said Improvements are not romoved In thei rent i rety, at SELLER's
expanse, n or before said 365 days after close of eScrow for any reason
whatsoeve , the right to romove $lid improvements Ihal\ terminate and
DUYER sha 1 dispose of said Improvements as it may see fit, Without any
furlher 0 ligation to SELLER.
14. AI.L1HC, flIDiT... It. Is further understood end agreed between
BUYE~n S L R tnat the purchase price set forth in Section' I
herelnaboye. represents an all Inclusive settlement In lieu of eminent
domaIn, and Is full payment for Just compensation for the purchase of all
propcrty fknterests Involved, and Htisftes any and all other paymonts
that may e required br law arising out the purchase and diSf'acement and
relocatio, and spec flca"y Includes but 11 not 11ml ed to. ell
lnterelts of SELLER, and waives any claim for costs. attorney'. fees,
Items Of.jmprovem. ents Pertaining to the Realty, pre-condemnation damages,
relocatlo benefits. .loss of business goodWill, If any. end any and all
claims wh eh might ar1~, out of BUYER'! p~rch!se of tfie r.~rvY~i~Y, :~ ~~
furlhera reel!' and understood that .$420,000 of the pure lase price Ih&1l
be for re ocation of church operations and faci1ltiel. .
SELLER a~knoWledgeS' that rights waived 1n this section have been
'explained, to m ~at luch waiVer Is knOWing, voluntary and
Intel1igerlt," -. (SELLERS to Initial for acceptance.)
15.'ill I ~ e ER herebY' grants to SELLE~ as part of the
consf ere Ion fer the lubJect propertYi and to hcl11tate relocation of
th, ""In' tho'" " tho", .:~ o~;~;;,..., In $500,00'.00,
I . r-
C \.,
the Cily property on R1dgeback Road containing 1.&1 acras known as
Assesso 's Parcel Number &92-192.17. Said Option to Purchas. sha"
commenc with closa or Escrow on 339, 341, and 36& Orange Avenue end end
after I 0 days. Said OptIon must ba exercised by registered mai' to the
.community Development Dept.',! City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula IstD, CA 91910. upon notification to eKerclse Option to
purchas L SELLER shall have 30 days to open an escrow acceptable to BUYER
and SEL tR and to deposit In CUh, $500,000.00 plus all escrow fees end
clollngicosts.
The tel'/lls, conditions, covenants and agreements let forth herein shall
apply \0 and bind tn. heirl, executors, admInistrators, assigns and
successqrs of the parties hereto. .
I .
Ih15 agl'eement contains the entire agreement betweon the parties, and
nelther:party relies upon any. warranty or representation not contained In
th Is agreemont.' .
IN Wl1Nhs WH"REOF, tho part10$ hereto have executed this agreement the
day and.y.ar first Jet forth hereinabove.
"Ll~" lH1" ''" 00'" '"~'" ""'" TI 00. mTl.. ''''''
Oato: ,;1--'.1.2-9/ BY: '"
;. G. Lt v. ston, Itrl
,
,
Date; ':;-/:1- rr/ BY:
I
ADDRESS: 48* E. Los Angeles Avenue. Su te 228, Moorp~rk, CA 93021
I
I
PHONE: (895) 623-9085
'WE', lHE ~ nv or CH"~ "'"
;
BUYER: ~HE ~ITY or CIlULA VISTA
Datel.ill:!.l.JL 8Yl
Datel ~ BY:
,
I
I
I
WPC 466911 I
,
,
c~ ~~~
15-1?
-5-
'.
PARCEL 4:
THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH, RANGE 2
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAID PROPERTY BEING SHOWN
ON LICENSED SURVEYORS MAP 9, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, APRIL 27, 1892 AS A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF
SUBDIVISION OF FRACTIONAL SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 15 (SAID SUBDIVISION BEING SOMETIMES CALLED THOMAS
SUBDIVISION) .
PAGE 10
I~/~
(In (JI
CHUlA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
February 21, 1991
Mike Livingston
Western District of the
Missionary Church
484 E. Los Angeles Ave.
Suite 228
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Livingston:
Thank you for your recent good-faith negotiations with the City of Chula Vista
for the purchase of your property at 341 Orange Avenue. As I am sure you
are aware, the acquisition of your property and the adjacent properties at
the corner of Orange and Fourth Avenues has been a major goa 1 of the City
and will result in the construction of an important community library.
The purpose of this letter is to communicate to you that in addition to the
$420,000 paid to the Missionary Church Association over and above the
appraised value of your land, it is my intention that the City will continue
to work with you and the 1 oca 1 congregati on to accompli sh your successful
relocation to a new site. We stand ready to assist you in whatever way we
can with the relocation process and development of your new facilities.
In regards to the Centro de Fe and their relocation needs, we have also
contacted Pastor Rodri guez and expressed our will i ngness to ass i s t them in
finding new church facilities to rent in the south Chula Vista area.
Aga in, thank you for your cooperati on in thi s matter of importance to the
City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
CS:LA:aqc
1..Y/1
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5047
..,
--U';':J, 1990, and-theVL the Chula-vi-;t;VCi;ut:norit.y conferred b;
by lts duly authoriz dgran~ee consents to thY Councll adopted on
e offlcer. e recordation thereof
"
\\\\
~
~- .
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY:
Item / "
17.J. ()S' Meeting Date 7/27/93
RESOLUTION Amending Resolution No. 16708 to Approve an
Amended Form of Bond Indenture Pertaining to the Issuance of Bonds in
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road).
Community Develop,Blent Director L.~'
Finance Director CiAfP
Director of Public Works, (
City Manager J4 \~ ~
4 (4/Sths Vote: Yes
No_l
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 23, 1992 the City Council approved the formation of the Assessment District for the
widening of Otay Valley Road. On June 30, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
16708 authorizing the issuance of bonds, approving the form of the bond indenture and related
documents (the "Resolution of Issuance"). On Monday, July 12, 1993 the City's Limited
Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series A, Assessment District 90-2 were offered to prospective
investors for the first time. However, the underwriting effort was met with resistance from the
investors due to greater than ordinary risks associated with this assessment district including, but
not limited to, toxic soils, endangered species and general recessionary impacts on the sales of
industrial properties. In discussions with investors. these concerns were mostlv focused upon
their possible impacts on the Otay Rio Business Park. comorisinl1. over 197 gross acres (see
mao). and its auestionable ability to make assessment installment oavments.
Over a two and one-half day order period, investors placed orders for less than 10 % of the
bonds offered. Given the limited response from investors, the bonds could not be underwritten.
After reviewing the status of the bonds and alternatives with the underwriters, Stone and
Youngberg, it has been determined that additional credit enhancement would be necessary to
secure payment of the Otay Rio Business Park's assessments in order to make the bonds
marketable. In order to reduce the size of the assessments, the City has already agreed to
obligate itself to advance funds to pay debt services on the Series A Bonds in the event of
delinquencies in the payment of assessment installments. This obligation, as memorialized in
the form of the bond indenture approved by the Resolution of Issuance is limited to 10 % of the
principal amount of the Series A Bonds (approximately $700,000). The Council is requested
to consider the modification of this obligation to advance funds to complete this proiect. Sale
of the bonds is a condition precedent for the development of the oroposed Chula Vista Auto
Park.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
I~'I
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date
DISCUSSION:
The Otay Rio Business Park (Phase I and II) comprises over 197 undeveloped (gross) acres of
a total of 801 acres included in the Otay Valley Road Assessment District. The owners have
attempted unsuccessfully to market the property for the past two years. In addition, acceptance
of subdivision improvements for Phase I is still pending the resolution of several issues including
the condition of on-site streets to be accepted by the City. The City is considering purchase of
30 acres for relocation of the public works yard within Phase II. Negotiations are near
completion and escrow is anticipated to close within several months.
The size of this property, the inability of the owners of the Park to sell parcels, and the state of
the southern California economy present a considerable risk for potential purchasers of the bonds
that assessments will be collectable. In the underwriters' opinion, the bonds will be marketable
if the City amends its obligation to advance funds to guarantee that the assessment on the
property will be paid even if the aggregate amount of such advances should exceed 10% of the
principal amount of the Series A Bonds. The amount of the additional advance in each fiscal
year during which the bonds are outstanding must be equal to the lesser of (i) the annual
assessment installment on unimproved parcels within the Otay Rio Business Park ("unimproved"
defined as those parcels which do not have facilities constructed for which a Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued) or (ii) the amount of delinquent assessment installments on the Otay
Rio Business Park properties. At a minimum, this obligation to advance funds could equal $0
(when the Otay Rio Business Park remains current on its installments) to a maximum of
$225,000 (the full amount of estimated annual installments on the Otay Rio Business Park
properties) .
Source of revenue for such advances could include Agency tax increments, Development Impact
Fees, transit and/or gas tax funds. An additional recommended source is the purchase funds
for the proposed public services yard site. The latter funds, totalling over $2 million have been
budgeted along with funds to payoff the proportionate share of assessments on the 30 acres
(approximately $600,000). If the sale goes through, ample purchase funds could be withheld
to secure at least one year's assessment for the remaining unimproved business park property.
If the sale does not go through, it may be possible to reallocate sufficient funds to provide the
credit enhancement.
Any additional advances will be secured by the property. In the event of default by the owners,
the City will have to pay delinquent assessments and may initiate foreclosure proceedings within
six months following the default. (Tax lien foreclosures cannot be initiated for five years.)
Discussions are continuing with the owners of Otay Rio Business Park concerning credit
enhancement secured by the property. They have indicated that their cooperation will be
conditioned upon resolution of issues impacting acceptance of the improvements associated with
their development and purchase of the public services yard site.
The bond underwriter, Stone & Youngberg, has stated that given these changes to the bond
structure, the firm would commit to underwrite bonds at interest levels not exceedinl! those
oril!inallv offered to investors.
I~ ..-2.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date
City staff is continuing discussions with the underwriters, legal counsel and property owner and
will report any changes in the status of this proposal at the Council meeting. Since the
expeditious sale of bonds is crucial at this time in order to move forward with the auto park
project, it is recommended that the Council approve the amendment of its obligation of advance
funds by the City and direct staff to report back concerning the most appropriate funding source
for this purpose at the next meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City has already obligated itself to advance funds for the payment of debt service on the
Bonds in an amount not to exceed 10% of the principal amount of the Bonds. This equals to
an obligation of approximately $700,000. In addition, the underwriters have requested credit
enhancement to cover $2.1 million assessment in the Gtay Rio Business Park. Depending upon
the interest rate on the bonds, the annual debt service could equal up to $225,000. The City is
requested to agree to advance the amount of the total annual debt service on unimproved
property (assessments for "improved" parcels would not have to be secured) even if such
advance should exceed the above 10 % limit. The City will only be required to expend these
funds in the event the owner does not pay annual assessments. Any funds expended by the City
would be secured by the property. Absent bankruptcy proceedings, the statutory waiting period
to file for foreclosure in the event of default is relatively short (6 months). The estimated value
of the entire business park is currently estimated at $17 - $20 million.
(Berlinlasmtdist.a13)
I~"';J
I. Zl
. 11
It I! 27
37
IZ II II I. .! 31
, "
!
I
~ I
,
.~
l'in.
o
FEE RECOVERY
OTAY VALLEY
DISTRICT
ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS
'51
.! ..
..
PHASE I
PHASE. :It
,.,
SIGNAL
- - DISTRIC T BOUNDARY
PARCEL BOUNDARY
"
N
..
J
<
o
~
o
z
(JTAY
RIO BuS,
PAR)(..
141
RESOLUTION NO.
17:Jd5"
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 16708 TO APPROVE AN AMENDED FORM
OF INDENTURE PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
did undertake and conduct proceedings for the installation of certain
public improvements in a special assessment district pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being
Division 12 of the streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter referred to as the
"Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body has, by the adoption of Resolution
No. 16708, previously authorized the issuance of bonds to finance said
improvements pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Improvement
Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of said Code; and,
WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution No. 16708 this legislative
body did approve the form of the Bond Indenture substantially in the form
presented to this legislative body, which Bond Indenture did establish
all formal terms and conditions relating to the authorization, issuance
and administration of said bonds; and,
tv
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 20 of the Bond Indentue did
obligate the City to advance available funds to cure any deficiency or
delinquency which may occur in the redemption fund established for such
bonds by failure of property owners to pay annual special assessments;
provided, however, that such obligation was limited to an aggregate
amount not to exceed 10% of the principal amount of the bonds so issued;
and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body desires to amend Resolution No. 16708
to approve an amended form of the Bond Indenture to modify the obligation
of the City to advance available funds to cure any such deficiency or
delinquency.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the amended form of Bend Indenture attached hereto
is approved in the form substantially presented herein and such amended
form of Bond Indenture shall supercede the form of Bond Indenture
previously approved in Resolution No. 16708. Such amended form of Bond
Indenture shall be subject to such modifications as deemed necessary and
as approved by the Finance Director. Final approval of the Bond
Indenture shall be conclusively evidenced by the signature of the Finance
Director. A copy of said Bond Indenture shall be kept on file with the
transcript of these proceedings and open for public inspection.
1/,-5'
SECTION 3. All other terms and conditions as contained in
Resolution No. 16708 shall remain in full force and effect.
Presented by
Approved as to form
A
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
/~ '~
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City
Chula Vista, California, this day of
by the following vote:
Council of the City of
1993,
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ss.
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on
the day of , 1993.
Executed this
day of
, 1993.
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
It'7 / /6--S
BOND INDENTURE
This Bond Indenture (the "Indenture") dated as of April 2, 1993, is entered into and
approved by the City of Chula Vista (the "Issuer") to establish the terms and
conditions pertaining to the issuance of bonds in a special assessment district known
and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (the "Assessment
District").
SECTION 1. Issuance, Designation and Amount. Pursuant to the provisions of the
"Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being Division 10 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, as amended (the "Act"), the
Issuer does hereby authorize and direct the issuance and sale of a
seri es of bonds to represent a portion of the unpaid assessments on
certain private property within the Assessment District, which bonds are
hereby designated as the Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta Assessment Di stri ct No.
90-2 (Otay Valley Road) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series A"
(the "Bonds").
SECTION 2. Unpaid Assessments. The Issuer shall determine the assessments which
are unpai d and the aggregate amount thereof as authori zed by Sect i on
8621 of the Streets and Hi ghways Code of the State of Cali forn; a and
shall issue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount equal to the deter-
mined amount of unpaid assessments. Unpaid assessments means the aggre-
gate amount of unpaid assessments on nonpublic lands in the Assessment
Di stri ct other than the Excl uded Assessments. "Exc 1 uded Assessments"
means the unpaid assessments against the parcels stated in Exhibit liB"
hereto, whi ch parcels are not e 1 i gi b le for development as of the date
hereof, and would be, if included as security for the Bonds, an impair-
ment to the security for the Bonds. The Excluded Assessments are the
subject of that certain Assessment District No. 90-2 Reimbursement
Agreement dated as of March 9, 1993, among the Issuer, the Redevelop-
ment Agency of the Issuer and the property owner pursuant to which the
Issuer may, at such time as the parcels subject to the Excluded Assess-
ments become developable, issue, sell and deliver Series B bonds
secured solely by the Excluded Assessments.
SECTION 3. Term of Bonds. As shown on Exhibit "A" hereto, the Bonds shall mature
a maximum of and not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the second
day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from thei r date.
The provisions of Part 11.1 of the Act, providing an alternative proce-
dure for the advance payment of assessments and the calli ng of Bonds
shall apply. The Bonds shall be subject to refunding pursuant to Divi-
sion 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
SECTION 4. Registered Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable only as fully registered
Bonds in the denomination of $5,000, or any integral multiple thereof,
except for one bond maturing in the first year of maturity, which shall
i nc 1 ude the amount by wh i ch the tot a 1 issue exceeds the maximum
integral multiple of $5,000 contained therein.
1
1/'''1
SECTION 5. Date of Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated April 2, 1993 and interest
shall accrue from that date at the rates set forth in Exhibit "A"
hereto.
SECTION 6.
Maturity and Denomination. The Bonds shall be issued in serial and
term form, with annual maturities on September 2nd of every year
succeeding twelve (12) months after their date, until the whole is paid.
The principal amount payable each year, taking into consideration
mandatory sinking fund redemptions, shall result in approximately equal
annual debt service during the term of the issue considering the
interest rate and principal amount payable in the respective years, is
as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and in Section 9 hereto.
Interest. Interest is payable each March 2 and September 2 (each being
an interest payment date), commencing September 2, 1993. Each Bond
shall be of a single maturity and shall bear interest at the rate as
set forth in the accepted bid proposal for said Bonds from the interest
payment date next preceding the date on which it is authenticated and
registered, (i) unless said Bond is authenticated and registered as of
an interest payment date, in which case it shall bear interest from
sai d interest payment date, (i i) un 1 ess sai d Bond is authent i cated and
registered prior to the first interest payment date, in which case it
shall bear interest from its date, or (iii) unless interest is in
default on said Bond on such date, in which case it shall bear interest
from the last date on which interest was paid in full or from its dated
date if no interest has been paid, until payment of its principal sum
has been discharged. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a
360 day year composed of twelve 30-day months.
Interest on said Bonds shall be paid by check mailed (or, in the case
of any owner of not less than $1,000,000 principal amount of the Bonds
who so requests in writing prior to the close of business on the
fifteenth day preceding each interest payment date, by wire transfer)
to the registered owner thereof on each interest payment date at his or
her address as it appears on the books of registration, or at such
address as may have been filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose,
as of the 15th day immedi ate ly precedi ng sai d interest payment date,
whether or not such day is a business day.
SECTION 8. Pl ace of Payment. The principal on the Bonds shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States of America upon surrender of the Bond
at the office of Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association
in San Francisco, California, the designated registrar, transfer agent
and paying agent of the Issuer ("Paying Agent"), or such other
registrar, transfer agent or paying agent as may be designated by
subsequent Resolution of the Issuer.
SECTION 7.
SECTION 9.
Redem~tion. The first series of Bonds shall be subject to redemption
as fo lows:
A. Optional. The Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption and
payment in advance of maturity, in whole or in part, on the 2nd day
of March or September in any year, from any source of funds, at the
2 I~ 'IP
following redemption prices, expressed as a percentage of the
pri ncipa 1 amount redeemed, together with accrued interest to the
date of redemption:
103% if redeemed on or before September 2, 2003
102% if redeemed on March 2 or September 2, 2004
101% if redeemed on March 2 or September 2, 2005
100% if redeemed on March 2, 2006 and thereafter.
If less than all outstanding Bonds are called for optional redemp-
tion, the Issuer not less than 45 days prior to the redemption date
sha 11 se 1 ect Bonds for redempt i on in such a way that the rat i 0 of
outstanding Bonds to issued Bonds shall be approximately the same
in each annual maturity insofar as possible. Within each annual
maturity Bonds shall be selected for redemption by lot.
B. Mandatory Sinking Fund. The Bonds maturing on September 2, 2017
(the "Term Bonds") are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
by lot at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof,
plus accrued interest to the redemption date, without premium, on
each September 2 in the years and for the amounts listed below:
Date
(September 2)
2008 $
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017 (maturity)
Amount
In the event of any optional, partial redemption of the Term Bonds,
the amounts in the foregoing schedule shall be reduced pro-rata
among redemption dates in order to maintain substantially level
Annual Debt Services (as herein defined).
C. Partial Redemption. If less than all of the outstanding Bonds are
to be redeemed, the port i on of any Bond of a denomi nat i on of more
than $5,000 to be redeemed shall be in the principal amount of
$5,000 or an integral multiple thereof, and, in selecting portions
of such Bonds for redempt i on, the payi ng Agent shall treat each
such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denomina-
tions which is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such
Bond to be redeemed in part by $5,000. Upon surrender of any Bond
to be redeemed in part only, the Paying Agent shall authenticate
and deliver to the owner, as the expense of the Issuer, a new Bond
or Bonds of authorized denominations equal in aggregate principal
amount to the unredeemed portion of the Bond surrendered, with the
3 1/'''11
same interest rate and the same maturity date. Such partial redemp-
tion shall be valid upon payment of the amount required to be paid
to such owner, and the Issuer and the Paying Agent shall be
released and discharged thereupon from all liability to the extent
of such payment.
D. Notice. Notice of redemption of Bonds shall be provided at least
30 days in advance of the redemption date by registered or certi-
fied mail or by personal service to the respective registered
owners thereof at thei r addresses as they appear on the regi stra-
tion books of the Registrar. Neither the failure of any registered
owner to receive redemption notice nor any defend in such notice so
given shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the
redemption of such Bonds. The Issuer shall provide instructions to
the Paying Agent to effect sinking fund redemptions at least 45
days prior to each redemption date.
SECTION 10. JReservedJ.
SECTION 11. Exchange of Registered Bonds. Fully registered Bonds may be exchanged
at the offi ce of the payi ng Agent in San Franci sco, Cali forni a, for a
like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of the same interest rate and
maturity, subject to the payment of taxes and governmental charges, if
any, upon surrender and cance 11 at i on of thi s Bond. Upon such transfer
and exchange, a new registered Bond or Bonds of any authorized denomina-
t i on or denomi nat ions of the same maturity for the same aggregate
principal amount will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor.
SECTION 12. Books of Registration. There shall be kept by the Paying Agent suffi-
cient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds and, upon
presentation for such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such
reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or
cause to be registered or transferred, on said register, Bonds as
herei nbefore prov i ded. .
SECTION 13. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed manually or in facsi-
mile by the Treasurer and by the City Clerk, and the corporate seal may
be imprinted manually or in facsimile on the Bonds. The Bonds shall
then be de livered to the payi ng Agent for authent i cat ion and regi stra-
t i on. In case an offi cer who shall have signed or attested to any of
the Bonds by facs imil e or otherwi se shall cease to be such offi cer
before the authentication, delivery and issuance of the Bonds, such
Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued, and upon
such authentication, delivery and issue, shall be as binding as though
those who signed and attested the same had remained in office.
SECTION 14. Authentication. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a certifi-
cate of authentication substantially in the form below, manually
executed by the Paying Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Indenture, and such certifi-
cate of the transfer agent and registrar shall be conclusive evidence
that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated
and del ivered hereunder, and are entitled to the benefits of this
Indenture.
4 /1. -/.2.
SECTION 15.
SECTION 16.
SECTION 17.
FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION AND REGISTRATION
This bond has been authenticated and registered.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST
AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION
as Transfer Agent, Registrar and
Paying Agent
Date:
By:
Negotiability, Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The transfer of any
Bond may be registered only upon such books of registration upon
surrender thereof to the Paying Agent, together with an assignment duly
executed by the owner or his attorney or legal representative, in satis-
factory form. Upon any such registration of transfer, a new Bond or
Bonds shall be authent i cated and deli vered in exchange for such Bond,
in the name of the transferee, of any denomination or denominations
authorized by this Indenture, and in an aggregate principal amount
equal to the principal amount of such Bond so surrendered. In all
cases in which Bonds shall be exchanged or transferred, the Paying
Agent shall authenticate at the earliest practical time, Bonds in accor-
dance with the provisions of this Indenture. All Bonds surrendered in
such exchange or registration of transfer shall forthwith be cancelled.
The Paying Agent may make a charge for every such exchange or registra-
tion of transfer of Bonds sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or
other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such
exchange or registration of transfer. No transfer of fully registered
Bonds shall be requi red to be made between the fi fteenth (15th) days
preceding each interest payment date, nor during the fifteen (15) days
preceding the selection of any Bonds for redemption prior to the
maturity thereof, nor with respect to any Bond which has been selected
for redemption prior to the maturity thereof.
ownershi~ of Bonds. The person in whose name any Bond shall be
registere shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof
for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal and
redemption premium, if any, of any such Bond, and the interest on any
such Bond, shall be made only to or upon the order of the registered
owner thereof or his legal representative. All such payments shall be
valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such
Bond, including the redemption premium, if any, and interest thereon,
to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
Mutilatedl Destroyed, Stolen or Lost Bonds. In case any Bond secured
hereby snall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the
Issuer shall cause to be executed and authenticated a new Bond of like
date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon the cancella-
tion of such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for such
Bond mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the owner's paying the
reasonab 1 e expenses and charges in connection therewith, and, in the
case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, his filing with the Paying
Agent and I ssuer of evi dence sat i sfactory to them that such Bond was
destroyed, stolen or lost, and of his ownership thereof, and furnishing
the Paying Agent and Issuer with indemnity satisfactory to them.
5
1/."';]
SECTION 18. Cancellation of Bonds. All Bonds paid or redeemed, either at or before
maturi ty, sha 11 be cancelled upon the payment or redempt i on of such
Bonds, and deli vered to the Issuer. Upon wri tten di rect i on from the
Issuer, Bonds may be destroyed by the Paying Agent, as allowed by law.
A certificate of destruction shall be provided to the Issuer. The
Issuer agrees to reimburse the Paying Agent's costs incurred with the
microfilming or other required permanent recording, if any, related
thereto.
SECTION 19. Creation of Funds. The Treasurer of the Issuer is hereby authorized
and directed to establish and maintain the following funds for purposes
of making payment for the costs and expenses for the works of improve-
ment and payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. The funds to
be created are des i gnated, and the terms and conditions of the funds
are, as follows:
IMPROVEMENT FUND: The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds, after
depos it of requi red amounts in the Reserve Fund and Redempt i on Fund,
shall be placed in the Fund hereby created, pursuant to Sections 10602
and 10424 of the California Streets and Highways Code, as amended,
which shall be called the "Improvement Fund", and the monies in said
Fund shall be used only for the purposes authorized in said assessment
proceedings, and specifically to pay for the costs and expenses of the
acquisition of the authorized public capital improvements, together
with a 11 i nci denta 1 expenses. Any surplus in the Improvement Fund
after completion of the improvements shall remain in the Improvement
Fund for a peri od of not 1 ess than two (2) years from the recei pt of
Bond proceeds as provided in Section 10427.1 of the California Streets
and Highways Code, and thereafter shall be utilized or distributed as
determined by the Issuer and authorized by the Act.
REDEMPTION FUND: The Treasurer is hereby authori zed and di rected to
keep a Redemption Fund designated by the name of the proceedings, into
which he shall place accrued interest, if any, on the Bonds from the
date of the Bonds to the date of deli very to the init i a 1 purchaser
thereof, all sums recei ved for the collect i on of the assessments and
the interest thereon, together with all penalties, if applicable.
Principal of and interest on said Bonds shall be paid to the registered
owner out of the Redempt i on Fund so created (pursuant to Sect i on 8671
of the California Streets and Highways Code). Accrued interest paid by
the purchaser of the Bonds, if any, shall be deposited in the Redemp-
tion Fund. In all respects not recited herein, the collection of
assessment installments and the Redemption Fund shall be governed by
the provisions of the Act. Under no circumstances shall the Bonds or
interest thereon be paid out of any other fund except as provided by
law.
SECTION 20. Issuer Liability. It is hereby further determined and declared that
the Issuer hereby obl igates itself to advance each March 2 and
September 2 any avail ab 1 e funds to cure any defi ci ency or de 1i nquency
which may occur in the Redemption Fund by failure of property owners to
pay annual assessment installments. The Issuer's obligation to advance
funds to cure a deficiency in the Redemption Fund shall be 1 imited in
outstandi ng, aggregate amount to the sum of $851,354.92 (the "Advance
6 I~ -Ii
Ob 1 i gat ion"); provided, however, the City agrees to ob 1 i gate i tse lf to
advance available funds in excess of such Advance Obligation if and to
the extent that any such advance is required to cure any deficiency in
the Redemption Fund resulting from the failure by the owners of the
properti es represented by Assessment Numbers 102 through 150, i nc 1 u-
sive, as shown upon the Assessment Diagram of the Assessment District
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June
25, 1992, in Book 26, Page 39, Document No. 92-0397322, Maps of Assess-
ment Districts to pay the annual assessment installments on such proper-
ties, or any of them, when due and payable. Amounts so advanced wi 11
be repaid to the Issuer from proceeds derived from the redemption or
foreclosure of property with respect to which an assessment installment
is unpai d and from payments of th"e del i nquent assessments, and to the
extent of such repayment to the Issuer, the Issuer's obligation to
advance funds shall be reinstated. The Issuer declares that it does
not ob1 igate itself to advance funds to cure any deficiency in the
Redemption Fund other than as covenanted in this Section 20.
SECTION 21. Covenant for Superior Court Foreclosure. In the event of del inquency
in the payment of any installments of unpaid assessments, the Issuer
does covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds that it wi 11
review assessment records of the County not later than February 15 and
June 15 of each year to determi ne the amount of the assessments
co 11 ected in the current fi sca 1 year. The Issuer shall commence fore-
closure action(s) on all parcels for which the payment of assessment
installments are del inquent in the Superior Court of the State of
California (Part 14, Division 10, "Improvement Bond Act of 1915",
Streets and Highways Code) no later than April 1 (with respect to the
February 15 determination) or August 1 (with respect to the June 15
determination) and diligently prosecute and pursue such foreclosure
proceedi ngs to judgment and sale. The Fi nance Di rector shall not ify
the Mayor and City Council and the City Attorney of anu del inquency
requiring the commencement of a foreclosure action pursuant hereto and
the City Attorney shall commence, or cause to be commenced, such
proceedings.
SECTION 22. Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exem t Status. The Issuer covenants that it
Wl not ma e any use 0 t e proceeds of the Bonds issued hereunder
wh i ch wou 1 d cause the Bonds to become "arbitrage bonds" subject to
Federal income taxation pursuant to the provisions of Section 148(a) of
the Code, or to become "Federally-guaranteed ob 1 i gati ons" pursuant to
the provisions of Section 149(b) of the Code, or to become "private
act i vity bonds" pursuant to the provi s ions of Section 141 (a) of the
Code. To that end, the Issuer will comply with all applicable require-
ments of the Code and all regulations of the United States Department
of Treasury issued thereunder to the extent such requi rements are, at
the time, applicable and in effect. Additionally, the Issuer agrees to
imp 1 ement and fo 11 ow each and every recommendat i on prov i ded by bond
counse 1 and deemed to be necessary to be undertaken by the I ssuer to
ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code in order
to preserve the exemption of interest on the Bonds from Federal income
taxation.
7 I~,/f
SECTION 23. Covenants Regarding Arbitrage. The Issuer shall not take nor permit or
suffer to be taken any action with respect to the gross proceeds of the
Bonds as such term is defined under the Code which, if such action had
been reasonab ly expected to have been taken, or had been deli berate ly
and intentionally taken, on the date of issuance of the Bonds, would
have caused the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" withi n the meani ng of
Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
The Issuer shall calculate Excess Earnings in accordance with the
Rebate Instructions attached hereto as Exhibit "c" and incorporated
herein by this reference, and shall pay Excess Earnings to the United
States of America in accordance with the Rebate Instructions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Rebate Instructions may be modified,
in whole or in part, without the consent of the owners of the Bonds,
upon receipt by the Issuer of an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect
that such modification shall not adversely affect the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds then Outstanding.
SECTION 24. Order to Print and Authenticate Bonds. The Treasurer is hereby
instructed to cause Bonds, as set forth above, to be typed or printed,
and to proceed to cause said Bonds to be authenticated and delivered to
an author i zed representative of the purchaser, upon payment of the
purchase price as set forth in the accepted proposal for the sale of
Bonds.
SECTION 25. Arbitrage Certificate. On the basis of the facts, estimates and circum-
stances now in existence and in existence on the date of issue of the
Bonds, as determined by the Treasurer, said Treasurer is hereby autho-
rized to certify that it is not expected that the proceeds of the issue
will be used in a manner that would cause such obligations to be arbi-
trage Bonds. Such cert ifi cat ion shall be deli vered to the purchaser
together with the Bonds.
SECTION 26. Amendments or Supplements. The Issuer may, by adoption of a resolution
from time to time, and at any time, without notice to or consent of any
of the Bondowners, approve an amendment or supplemental indenture
hereto for any of the following purposes:
(a) to cure any ambiguity, to correct or supplement any provision here-
in which may be inconsistent with any other provision herein, or
to make any other provision with respect to matters or questions
arising under this Indenture or in any supplemental indenture,
provided that such act i on shall not materi ally adversely effect
the interests of the Bondholders;
(b) to add to the covenants and agreements of and the 1 imitations and
the restrictions upon the Issuer contained in this Indenture,
other covenants, agreements, 1 imi tat ions and restri ct ions to be
observed by the Issuer which are not contrary to or inconsistent
with this Indenture as theretofore in effect;
(c) to modify, alter, amend or supplement this Indenture in any other
respect which is not materially adverse to the interests of the
Bondowners;
8
I" -;"
(d) to maintain the tax exempt status of the interest payable on the
Bonds; or
(e) to issue additional bonds as provided in Section 27 hereof.
Excl usive of the supplemental indentures hereto provided for in the
first paragraph of this Section 26, the Owners of not less than 60% in
aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding shall have the
right to consent to and approve the adoption by the Issuer of such
supp 1 ementa 1 indentures as shall be deemed necessary or des i rab 1 e by
the Issuer for the purpose of waiving, modifying, altering, amending,
adding to or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provi-
sions contained in this Indenture; provided, however, that nothing
herein shall permit, or be construed as permitting, (a) an extension of
the maturity date of the principal of, or the payment date of interest
on, any Bond, (b) a reduction in the principal amount of, or redemption
premium on, any Bond or the rate of interest thereon, (c) a preference
or priority of any Bond or Bonds over any other Bond or Bonds, or (d) a
reduction in the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds the Owners of
which are required to consent to such resolution or order, without the
consent of the Owners of all Bonds then outstanding.
SECTION 27. Additional Bonds. The Issuer may issue from time to time additional
bonds upon the unpaid assessments in an amount not to exceed the total
amount of unpaid assessments then existing less the principal amount of
Bonds previ ous ly issued for, and secured by, the unpai d assessments.
Additional bonds issued pursuant to this Section 27 shall be on a
parity with the Bonds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer has executed this Bond Indenture effective the date
first written hereinabove.
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 It. "'/7//6--F/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
EXHIBIT "A"
MATURITY SCHEDULE
YEAR
PRINCIPAL MATURING
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2017 (Term Bond)
$
10 I~ -/<{'
INTEREST RATE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
EXHIBIT "B"
EXCLUDED ASSESSMENTS
11
II, '/1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
EXHIBIT "C"
ARBITRAGE REBATE INSTRUCTIONS
This document sets forth instructions regarding the investment and disposition of
moni es depos ited in vari ous funds and accounts estab 1 i shed in connection with the
issuance by the City of Chula Vista ("Issuer") of its Assessment District No. 90-2
(Otay Valley Road) Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series A in aggregate
principal amount of $ ("Bonds").
The purpose of these instructions is to provide the Issuer with information
necessary to ensure that the investment of the monies in the funds and accounts
described herein will comply with the arbitrage requirements imposed by the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued thereunder.
DEFI N IT IONS
For purposes of these instructions, the following terms shall have the meanings set
forth below:
Bond Year. The term "Bond Year" means each 12 month period (or shorter period from
the date of issuance) that ends at the close of business on a date selected by the
Issuer.
Code. The term "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
De 1 i very Date. The term "Deli very Date" means
, 1992.
Excess Investment Earnings. The term "Excess Investment Earnings" means an amount
equal to the sum of:
(1) The excess of
(a) The aggregate amount earned from the Deli very Date of the Bonds on a 11
Nonpurpose Investments in which Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are invested,
over
(b) The amount that would have been earned if the Yield on such Nonpurpose
Investments had been equal to the Yield on the Bonds,
plus
(2) Any income attributable to the excess described in paragraph (1).
In determining Excess Investment Earnings, (i) any gain or loss on the disposition
of a Nonpurpose Investment shall be taken into account and (ii) any amount earned on
a bona fide debt service fund shall not be taken into account.
Capita 1 i zed terms herein that are not defined herei n sha 11 have the meani ng set
forth in the Bond Indenture.
12
I ~'.2.f)
Gross Proceeds. The term "Gross Proceeds" means the following:
(1) Original proceeds, i.e., the amount received by the Issuer as a result of the
sale of the Bonds and any amounts actually or constructively received from
investing the amount received from the sale of the Bonds;
(2) Amounts, other than ori gi na 1 proceeds, in the Reserve Fund and in any other
fund established as a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund;
(3) Amounts, other than as specified above, that are reasonably expected to be or
are used to pay debt service with respect to the Bonds; and,
(4) Amounts received as a result of investing amounts described above.
Investment Property. The term "Investment Property" means any security, ob 1 i gat i on,
annuity contract or investment-type property in whi ch Gross Proceeds are invested,
excluding, however, the following:
(a) United States Treasury - State and Local Government Series, Demand Deposit
secu rit i es; and
(b) tax-exempt obligations.
For purposes of these Instructions, the term "tax-exempt obligations" shall include
only obl igations the interest on which is (i) excludable from gross income for
federal income tax purposes and (ii) not treated as an item of tax preference under
Section 57(a) (5) of the Code. The term "tax-exempt obligation" shall, however, also
include stock in a "qualified regulated investment company," which is a corporation
that (i) is a regulated investment company withi n the meani ng of Sect i on 851 (a) of
the Code and meets the requirements of Section 852(a) of the Code for the taxable
year; (i i) has on ly one class of stock authori zed and outstandi ng; (i i i) invests all
of its assets in tax-exempt obl igations (as defined above) to the extent practic-
able; and (iv) has at least 98% of its gross income derived from interest on, or
gain from the sale or other disposition of, tax-exempt obligations, or the weighted
average value of its assets is represented by investments in tax-exempt obligations.
Nonpurpose Investment. The term "Nonpurpose Investment" means any Investment
Property which is acquired with the Gross Proceeds of the Bonds and is not acquired
in order to carry out the governmental purpose of the Bonds.
Purchase Pri ce. The term "Purchase Pri ce", for the purpose of computat i on of the
Yield of the Bonds, has the same meaning as the term "Issue Price" in Sections
1273(b) and 1274 of the Code, and, in general, means the initial offering price to
the publ ic (not including bond houses and brokers, or similar persons or organiza-
tions acting in the capacity of underwriters or wholesalers) at which price a
substant i a 1 amount of each maturity (at 1 east 10 percent) of the Bonds was sold.
The term "Purchase Price", for the purpose of computation of Yield of Nonpurpose
Investments means the fair market value of the Nonpurpose Investment on the date of
use of Gross Proceeds of the Bonds for acquisition thereof, or if later, on the date
that Investment Property constituting a Nonpurpose Investment becomes a Nonpurpose
Investment of the Bonds.
Regulations. The term "Regulations" means temporary and permanent Regulations
promulgated under Section 148 of the Code.
13 1~'.2J
Yield. The term "Yield" means that discount rate which, when used in computing the
present value of all payments of principal and interest (or other payments in the
case of Nonpurpose Investments which require payments in a form not characterized as
principal and interest) on a Nonpurpose Investment or on the Bonds produces an
amount equal to the Purchase Pri ce of such Nonpurpose Investment or the Bonds, all
computed as prescribed in applicable Regulations. The yield on Nonpurpose
Investments must be computed by the use of the same frequency interval of
compounding interest as is used with respect to the Bonds.
REBATE REQUIREMENT
No later than the last day of the fifth
Bon Year, eac succee lng 1 t Bond Year and on the date the last Bond is
discharged, the Issuer shall calculate or cause to be calculated the Excess
Investment Earnings. This calculation shall be made or caused to be made by the
Issuer in accordance with the following rules:
(1)
For purposes of calculating the Yield on any investment as required under these
Ins t ruct ions, the purchase pri ce of the investment wi 11 be the fai r market
pri ce of the investment on an estab 1 i shed market. Thi s means that the Issuer
wi 11 not pay a premi um and wi 11 not accept a lower interest rate than is
usually paid to adjust the Yield on an investment.
The market price of certificates of deposit issued by a commercial bank may be
regarded as being at a fair market price if they are determined by reference to
the bona fide bid price quoted by a dealer who maintains an active secondary
market in such cert ifi cates, or, if no secondary market ex i sts, by sat i sfyi ng
subparagraph (3) below relating to investment agreements.
Investments pursuant to an investment agreement may be regarded as being made
at a fair market price if (i) at least three (3) bids are received on the
investment contract from persons without an interest in the Bonds; (i i) the
winning bidder provides a certificate that, based on its reasonable expecta-
t ions on the date the investment agreement is entered into, investments wi 11
not be purchased or sole at a pri ce other than thei r fai r market val uej (i i i)
the yi e 1 d on the investment agreement is at 1 east equal to the yi e 1 d offered
under the highest bid received from a non-interested party; and (iv) the yield
on the investment agreement is at least equal to the yield offered on similar
contracts.
(2)
(3)
(4)
For other investments traded on an established market, the fair market price
sha 11 be the mean between the bi d and offered pri ces for such ob 1 i gat ions on
the date of purchase or, if subsequent thereto, the date the investment becomes
a Nonpurpose Investment.
(5)
Where amounts must be restricted to a certain Yield and investments cannot be
purchased on an estab 1 i shed market or a bona fi de fai r market pri ce cannot be
established at a Yield that does not exceed the maximum permissible Yield, the
Issuer may acquire or hold tax-exempt securities, currency or United States
Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness, Notes and Certificates - State and Local
Government Series ("SLGs") that Yield no more than the maximum permissible
Yield. SLGs are available at the Federal Reserve Bank.
14 I(,....).A
Payment to United States. The Issuer shall payor cause to be paid an amount equal
to Excess Investment Earni ngs (after app 1 i cat i on of any avail ab 1 e credi ts) to the
United States of America in installments with the first payment to be made not later
than thi rty (30) days after the end of the fi fth Bond Year, and with subsequent
payments to be made not later than five (5) years after the preceding payment was
due. The Issuer shall assure that each such installment is in an amount equal to at
least ninety percent (90%) of the Excess Investment Earnings with respect to the
Bonds as of the close of the computat i on peri od. Not 1 ater than sixty (60) days
after the retirement of the Bonds, the Issuer shall payor cause to be paid to the
United States one hundred percent (100%) of the theretofore unpaid Excess Investment
Earnings of the Bonds. The Issuer shall remit payments to the United States at the
address prescribed by the Regulations as the same may be from time to time in effect
wi th such reports and statements as may be prescri bed by such Regul at ions. The
Issuer shall assure that such payments are made to the United States on a timely
basis from any funds lawfully available therefor.
Further Obl igation of Issuer. The Issuer shall assure that Excess Investment
Earnings are not paid or disbursed except as provided in these instructions. To
that end, the Issuer shall assure that investment transactions are on an arms-length
basis. In the event that Nonpurpose Investments consist of certificates of deposit
or investment contracts, investment in such NonPurpose Investments shall be made in
accordance with the procedures described in applicable Regulations as from time time
in effect.
REBATE EXCEPTIONS. Absent an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, the
exception of Section I48(f) (4) (C) of the Code will be considered satisfied only if
either the Six-Month Exception (set forth in subparagraph (1) below) or the Two-Year
Exception (set forth in subparagraph (2) below) is satisfied. If either of such
requirements is satisfied, the Rebate Requirement will be treated as having been
satisfied.
(1)
Six-Month Exce~. The Six-Month Exception will be treated as having been
satisfied if a Gross Proceeds of the Bonds are expended for the governmental
purposes of the Bonds no 1 ater than the day that is six (6) months after the
date of deli very of the Bonds, and if all amounts, if any, determi ned to be
required to be paid to the United States Treasury in compliance with the Rebate
Regulations are paid to the United States Treasury. Gross Proceeds which are
held in the Reserve Fund and Gross Proceeds which arise after such six (6)
months and which were not reasonably anticipated as of the date of delivery of
the Bonds shall not be considered Gross Proceeds for purposes of this subpara-
graph (1).
(2)
Two-Year Exception. The Two-Year Exception will be treated as having been
satisfied in the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (ii) below are satisfied.
(i)
At least 75 percent of the available construction proceeds of the Bonds
are used for construction expenditures (including reconstruction and
rehabil itation) with respect to property that is owned by a governmental
unit or an organization described in Section 50I(c) (3) of the Code and
exempt from federal income tax under Section 50I(a) of the Code.
15 I~ ,,).J
(i i) At 1 east 10 percent of the avai 1 ab 1 e construct i on proceeds of the Bonds
have been expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the
six (6) month period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds,
at least 45 percent of the available construction proceeds have been
expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the one (1)
year period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds, at least
75 percent of the available construction proceeds of the Bonds have been
expended for the governmental purposes of the Bonds within the 18-month
period beginning on the date of the delivery of the Bonds, and all of the
available construction proceeds of the Bonds have been expended for the
governmental purposes of the Bonds within the two (2) year period beginn-
ing on the date of the del ivery of the Bonds. For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term "avail ab 1 e construct ion proceeds" means the amount
equal to the issue price (within the meaning of Sections 1273 and 1274 of
the Code) of the Bonds, increased by earnings on the issue price, earn-
ings on amounts, if any, on deposit in the Reserve Fund not funded from
the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, and earni ngs on all of the fore-
going earnings, and reduced by the amount of the issue price on deposit
in the Reserve Fund and the issuance costs financed by the Bonds. The
term "available construction proceeds" shall not include amounts earned
on the Reserve Fund after the earl ier of the close of the two (2) year
period described above in this subparagraph (ii) or the date the construc-
tion is substantially completed. The term "available construction
proceeds" shall not include payments on any obl igation acqui red to carry
out the governmental purposes of the Bonds and shall not include earnings
on such payments.
For purposes of subparagraph (ii) of this subparagraph (2) all of the available
construction proceeds shall be treated as expended for the governmental
purposes of the Bonds within two (2) years from the date of the delivery of the
Bonds if all of such proceeds are expended for the governmental purposes of the
Bonds within three (3) years from the date of the delivery of the Bonds and
such amounts would have been expended for such purposes within two (2) years
from the date of the del ivery of the Bonds but for a reasonable retainage
(~, to ensure compliance with the terms of a construction contract) that
does not exceed five (5) percent of the available construction proceeds of the
Bonds.
(3) Multi-Purpose Issue Treatment. Solely for purposes of determining whether the
Bonds are described in subparagraph (1) of subparagraph (2) above, the Issuer
may treat the Bonds as two separate issues. Only one of such two separate
issues may be treated as satisfying the requirements of subparagraph (2) above.
EXPECTATIONS AND ELECTIONS. The Issuer expects that the proceeds of the sale of the
Bonds deposited in the Improvement Fund will be fully expended for construction
expenditures within the meaning of Section 148(f) (4) (C) (iv) (I) of the Code. The
Issuer does, therefore, expect to satisfy the spending requirements of Section
148(f) (4) (C) (ii) of the Code. Accordingly, the Issuer does elect to apply the
two-year expenditure exception of Section 148(f)(4)(C)(ii) of the Code to the Bonds
and further elects to have the penalty provision of Section 148(f)(4)(C)(vii) apply.
16. It -:11
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. With respect to all Nonpurpose Investments acquired in a
fund or account established and held by the Issuer, the Issuer shall record or cause
to be recorded the following information: (i) purchase date, (ii) purchase price,
(iii) information establishing that the purchase price is the fair market value as
of such date (~, the published quoted bid by a dealer in such an investment on
the date of purcJiase), (iv) any accrued interest paid, (v) face amount, (vi) coupon
rate, (vii) periodicity of interest payments, (viii) disposition price, (ix) any
accrued interest received, and (x) disposition date. To the extent any investment
becomes a Nonpurpose Investment by becoming Gross Proceeds after it was originally
purchased, it shall be treated as if it were acquired at its fair market value at
the time it becomes a Nonpurpose Investment. The Issuer shall keep and retain for a
period of six (6) years following the retirement of the Bonds, records of all
determinations made pursuant to these Instructions.
AMENDMENT. In order to comply with the covenants in the Bond Indenture regarding
compliance with the requirements of the Code and the continued exclusion from gross
income for purposes of federal income taxation of interest paid on the Bonds, the
procedures described in these Instructions may be modified as necessary, without the
consent of Bond owners, and based on the opinion of nationally recognized bond
counsel acceptable to the Issuer, to comply with regulations, rulings, legislation
or judicial decisions as may be applicable to the Bonds. Neither the Issuer nor any
of its members, agents, officers or employees shall be liable for any action taken
or for its failure to take any action in connection with these Instructions. The
Issuer may rely conclusively on the advice of its Bond Counsel with respect to the
requirements of these Instructions.
Dated:
, 1993
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17 /t,..if
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TI11..E: Report: Consuttam Selection Process for Greg Rogers Park Improvemem Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recr~io~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager...J4 ~~ (4/5lhs Vote Required Yes_Noll.
At the March 2, 1993 Council meeting, the Departmem was directed to return with a report which would address
Council's concern on the RFP process used to select a design consuttant for the Greg Rogers Park Improvement
Project.
RECOMMENDA1l0N: That Council accept the report.
BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDA1l0NS: N/A
DISCUSSION: At the March 2, 1993 City Council Meeting, the Department recommended that the City enter imo
an agreement with Van Dyke and Associates for the preparation of construction documents for Greg Rogers
Community Park at a cost not to exceed $66,000 (See Attachment A). At that meeting, Council was concerned
about the following aspects of the selection process: 1) firms who responded to the RFP and what their bids were,
2) the criteria that was used in narrowing the list down to five firms presented in the staff report, 3) members of
the selection committee and any relevant information regarding deliberations of the committee, and 4) information
on the process used for determining the recommendation, including a description of the weight given to various
factors used in the evaluation. Subsequently, the Department was directed to return to Council with a report
addressing these four concerns.
The Department has taken the following actions in an effort to respond to Council's concerns: 1) The Director of
Parks and Recreation and the Deputy City Manager interviewed the members of the selection committee, 2)
initiated an analysis and ranking of RFP's by an independent reviewer from the City of Escondido (Attachment
'B"), and 3) evaluated the overall selection process.
The Process
The selection of the design consultant for the park improvements was initiated by preparing and distributing a
request for proposal (Attachment 'C'). The RFP was sent to approximately (50) design firms on the consultant
list. Additional RFP's were distributed to firms that made inquiries about the project. A deadline date for RFP's
submittal was established for October 16, 1992.
A total of 17 firms responded to the RFP. A selection Committee was formed which was composed of City staff,
Landscape Architect from Parks and Recreation Department, Sr. Civil Engineer from the Engineering Division of
Public Works, a Landscape Architect from the Planning Departmem, and Sr. Housing Inspector from Building and
Housing. A letter was sent to the 17 candidates notifying them of the time and date the selection committee
would be convening to evaluate the proposals.
The criteria utilized in reviewing, evaluating and grading the proposals included:
1) Completeness of the proposal in response to the RFP
2) Inclusion of the appropriate sub-consultants to address the scope of work for phase one
3) Proposed timeline
4) Previous work completed by the firm relative to the scope of phase one
5) Qualifications, skill and experience of the firm
6) Cost
~
11- \
Problems in the Ratina and Rankina Process ~
On December 10, 1992 the raters met to discuss the proposals and generate _ shortlist. During the investigation
of the scoring process, It was evidem that the scores were not retained. In addition, two raters were not
completely prepared and did not evaluate the Proposals prior to the meeting to shortlist the proposals. This
necessitated two raters to review the proposal scores to be assigned and tabulated during the meeting. It is
staff's opinion that the Initial rating process to establish a shortlist had some problems. In light of these problems,
staff imends to develop specific internal administrative guidelines which specify how RFP's should be shortlisted.
Basically, the guidelines will idemify critical steps in the process such as the need to retain records.
The Selection Committee met on February 18, 1993 to imerview fIVe firms that were idemified as shortlist candidate
firms. At that session the firms were evaluated and, in this instance, poims were tabulated on a scoring sheet (see
Attachmem '0', scoring sheet).
The following information illustrates the cumulative scores submitted to the Department for consideration.
Firm
Points
Amoum
1. Van Dyke
2. De Lorenzo
3. T.I. Maloney
4. Estrada
5. Dike
357 1/2
3571/2
347
338
330
$52,700
$39,700
$58,500
$68,071
$53,500
Interviews with the Selection Committee
The interviews of selection committee members were conducted by a Deputy City Manager and the Director of
Parks and Recreation. Basically, the common theme expressed by the Committee members was that the selection
process was objective. The system was flawed and the following is recommended to rectify this situation.
As an immediate step toward resolving the problems associated with selecting a design firm for Greg Rogers Park,
the Department recommends the following:
1) Begin the process over again by re-evaluating the 17 RFP's presently on file.
2) Expand the scope of work to include the design of a parking lot. Staff Is recommending a parking lot be
included in this phase of the design because of the problems associated with liability and access.
3) Work through the City Manager's office in reappointing another selection committee. The selection
committee may include the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Department's Park Planner, someone
from the Planning Department, an individual from the Engineering Division, and a landscape architect or
planner from another jurisdiction.
Staff will modify existing administrative guidelines dealing with Consultam selection and will forward this to the City
Council as information.
Fiscal Impact: NONE
2
~
11-'2.-
ATTACHMENT A
COUNcn.. AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 3f1J93
ITEM 1TIl.E: Resolution Appropriating additional funds from the
unappropriated Park and Acquisition Development Funds (PAD) for the
design construction documents and related services for Greg Rogers Phase I
Improvement Project, and
Approving an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Van Dyke and
Associates for design development, construction development and related
services for Greg Rogers Park.
SUBMullliJ BY: Director of Parks and Recreati~
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/Stbs Vote: Yes..!... No_)
The Greg Rogers Master Plan was approved by Council on April 16, 1991. A landscape consultant
is required to prepare design, construction documents and other related services for the project.
There are insufficient funds in the appropriated CIP to complete the necessary services for the Phase
I improvement of the Greg Rogers Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution which:
1. Appropriates $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds to complete the necessary
design construction, document development, and related services for the Phase I
improvements; and
2. Authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement with Van Dyke and Associates for
consultant services for Greg Rogers Park Phase I.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: In 1990, the Rancho del Sur Partnership commissioned a landscape architectural firm
to Master Plan Greg Rogers Park. The Master Plan was a condition in the Public Facilities Financing
Plan, approved by Council on February 20, 1990. The Master Plan Study received extensive input
from three community meetings and the school faculty at Greg Rogers School. The conceptual plan
was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in February, 1991, and by Council on April
16, 1991. As per Council's request, a proposed phasing scheme for the implementation of the plan
was developed. A five-year capital improvement phasing schedule was proposed, with the initial
phasing to begin in FY 92/93 for the Phase I Improvement Design.
IF,_".,.....,,".93J
~
I,-~
The Greg Rogers Master Plan addressed the park needs to improve the ballfields, parking, picnic
facilities, restroom, relocation of maintenance building, enhancement of play lots, and other park
amenities. The estimated cost of the total improvements was $3.4 million, with the improvements
incrementally phased over a five-year period.
For FY 1992-93, $46,000 was appropriated for Phase I, which includes design, construction documents
and related services. Phase II funding for the improvements is proposed for the 1993-94 Capital
Impro~ment Program. These improvements would include: relocation of power lines; grading of
ballfield areas; utility slab-out for future snack bar/restroom and storage facility; construction of four
baseball fields and accessories; slope planting, turf, and irrigation; and the construction of a ballfield
parking lot. At an estimated construction cost of $700,000, funding for the construction phase will
be considered with other Department's CIP projects for FY 93194.
The Department made a thorough analysis to determine the need for an outside consultant to
prepare the necessary construction documents for this project. The Department evaluated this need
based on the following criteria:
1. Does existing staff have the required expertise or equipment?
The City has the staff expertise and equipment to prepare a portion of the necessary plans;
however, the workload of the Department's Landscape Architect and Engineering
Department's Engineers would need to be re-prioritized, and current projects in process by
staff would be deferred indefinitely. The Department's special projectgs and current CIP
work list includes: Otay Valley Regional Park project, Rohr Park Improvements (Phase II),
Memorial Park Improvements (Phase II), Hilltop Park Improvements, McCandliss Memorial
GrovelPark (Phase II), and Playground Renovations at various sites. In addition, the
Landscape Architect provides extensive work and plan checking services for the development
projects, providing revenue, at full cost recovery, to the City's General Fund. These projects
are Salt Creek I, Salt Creek Ranch, the Bayfront Plan, EI Rancho del Rey, and Otay Ranch,
etc. The work necessary for the current project would require additional staffing if the Greg
Rogers Park project design is performed in-house.
2. Can the work project's short time frame be met by City Staff?
For a project as complex as the Greg Rogers Park Plan, considerable organization of the
various disciplines (i.e., electrical, civil engineering, architectural, and landscape) need close
coordination, which would be difficult for existing City staff to accomplish under the current
work load schedule. There is a short window of time available to get the project design and
construction complete, in order to minimize the impact to the users of the park, primarily the
Park View Little League.
3. Is it more cost effective to have the work completed by an outside provider?
The design work will take approximately twenty (20) weeks to complete by the consultant.
They projected 390 hours for landscape architectural design. This would necessitate an
average of twenty (20) hours a week for the Department's Landscape Architect to complete
the project in the same time frame. This work effort would seriously affect the current
schedule of projects in the Department.
1F,_U39.93)
M:
\, - ~
A cost comparison for the Landscape Architect consultant is $80.00 per hour. The
Department's Landscape Architect's hourly salary (including full cost recovery) is $61.00 per
hour. There would be non-General Fund savings if performed in-house; however, there
would be a negative impact on the revenue stream from outside resources if the work
program were re-directed to this project.
After analyzing the above criteria, it was the Department's conclusion that the Greg Rogers Park
Phase I plans should be performed by an outside consultant.
The Department solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 16, 1992, for interested
landscape architectural firms to provide the landscape architectural services necessary to prepare the
construction documents for the Phase I improvements. Notices were sent to over 50 firms in the San
Diego and Orange County area. The Department received 17 proposals by the October 16, 1992
deadline.
The selection procedure, as outlined in CYMe Sections 2.5.220 and .230 and Council Policy #102-05,
was utilized in reviewing the proposals. A selection committee comprised of representatives from
Engineering, Planning, Building and Housing and Parks and Recreation Departments evaluated the
seventeen (17) RFP utilizing a "qualification based selection process" to short-list the candidates to
five firms. The five finalists were invited to make an oral presentation to the selection committee.
A grading criteria based on qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project and design approach
and fee proposals was used to rank the firms. The final ranking of the finalists were:
FIRM FEE PROPOSAL
1. Van Dyke and Associates $52,700
2. DeLorenzo & Associates $39,700
3. Estrada Landscape, Inc. $68,071
4. KTU+A $53,550
5. T.l. Maloney $58,500
In comparing the top two firms which have provided consulting services for other City park projects,
Van Dyke and Associates maintained an excellent and cooperative working relationship with staff,
and stayed within the agreed contract price and project schedule. Delorenzo and Associates had
a less harmonious relationship with staff, was not as cost conscious and exceeded project time
schedules.
The fee proposal by Van Dyke and Associates is higher than the second ranked firm, however, the
Cities are authorized to select professional consultant services on the basis of demonstrated
competence and professional qualifications and not necessarily to the "low bidder." Fees are only
one of the considerations in the evaluation process. Van Dyke and Associates demonstrates these
qualities in the consultant services provided for the Marina View Park project. The Deparonent was
extremely pleased with Van Dyke's cooperation, quality of work and the final product. A total of
$69,000 was paid to Van Dyke during 1991-92 for this contract.
IF_--"".9l]
~
I J -..5
The original fee required for Van Dyke and Associates came to $52,700. After a preliminary .
negotiating meeting to define the scope of services required, it was decided to include, in Phase I,
design and construction document services required for improvements to the parking lot for the
ballfields. This additional design and construction service document increased consultant fee by
$8,800 for a total of $61,500. A parking lot was not considered when the cost for the first phase
construction documents were calculated. However, after further review by staff, it has become quite
evident that the parking lot should be included in this phase of construction documents. Staff is
thereby recommending expanding the original scope of service, which includes a parking lot, because
of the following reasons:
1. The Federal mandate to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public
parking facilities be accessible to the physically challenged. This new law was not in effect
when the CIP was developed.
2. The existing dirt parking lot has historically been a nuisance due to excessive dust during dry
months and mud during inclement weather. Severe erosion problems (ruts and holes) have
adversely affected this dirt lot.
3. A new lot will efficiently delineate specific areas where cars must park versus the random and
inefficient use of space which presently exists.
The revised fee of $61,500 does not include funds for reimbursables and any necessary reports to
complete the project. The consultant has requested:
1. $2,500 for reimbursable expenses i.e. reproductions, copying, additional blueprints, etc.
2. $2,000 for a title report to locate all easements, utilities on the project site.
The Department believes these are legitimate expenses that were not included in the original scope
of services and therefore recommend approval. The total cost for the consultant services will be
$66,000.
The Department is requesting an additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds. The
Department believes this proposal is appropriate and recommends approval. The total consultant
fee is $66,000, and an additional $4,000 is needed for Parks and Recreation staff services. There is
$46,000 available in the FY 92193 CIP budget, with $42,000 earmarked for design work, and $4,000
for engineering staff services reimbursement.
(F,_".93)
~
11_ t..
FISCAL IMPACT: An additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds will be required for
the desired landscape services and staff services reimbursement.
I.
Funding Required
A Consultant Services
B. Engineering Staff Cost
C. Park Recreation Staff Cost
TOTAL
$66,000
4,000
4.000
n.
Funding Available
A Consultant Services
B. Engineering Staff Cost
TOTAL
42,000
4.000
m. Additional Funds Required
Attachments: Schematic Map
Agreement
(F~39.93J
~
11-)
$74,000
$46,000
$28,000
TInS PAGE BlANK
~
li-~
MINlrres OF A RE~ MEEl1NG OF "mE an COUNCL
OF "mE an OF QiUlA V1~A
Tuesday, March 2,1993
4:07 p.m.
Council Chamben
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROlJ. CAlL:
PRESENT:
Councilmemben Fox, Horton (arrived at 4:32 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Nader.
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
None
John D. Goss, City Manager; Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager; Bruce
Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk.
2. PLEDGE OF AI J J;GIANCE TO "mE fLAG. !rn.J;"fr PRAYER.
3. APPROVAL OF MINlrres: None submitted.
4. SPECAL OIlDERS OF "mE DAY: Prnrlaimillf 1993 as Senior Center Year in me City . The
proclamation declaring 1993 as Senior Center Year was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Rindone to Ema
Lenihan.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
(Items pulled: Sa, Sb, 6, and 10)
BALANCE OF "mE CONSENT CALENDAR. OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the ten wu waived,
passed. and approved I."a"imously.
5. WRITI'EN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting funding of a traffic light on Dray I.abs Road at me Gotham Street comer .Marilee
Castenholz McKelvey, 1615 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that Ms. McKelvey
be advised by staff of the status of the proposed signal and that staff will recommend a signal be installed
at either Gotham or Elmhunt after a decision has been made on the transit center. Pulled from me Consent
Calendar.
Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, 91913, asked Council if they could separate the traffic signal issue at
Gotham and Otay Lakes Road from the transit center.
Mayor Nader asked staff to respond to Mr. Davis' concerns that there should not be a link between the traffic
signal and the transit center. If staff still believed that the two should be tied together, how long would it
take?
Mr. Uppitt responded that staff still thinks there is a connection, although the college Board of Directon had
made the decision that the only place they want to look for the transit facility is near the new libraI)'. In
that case, we would still be putting the signal either at Gotham or Elmhunt; Gotham would be the preferred
location. Staff is not excited about this option because of costs. He felt it would probably take another
three to four months before all the information is in, and the Council and School Board could come to a
consensus.
~
\1-'1
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Goss stated that this is speculation at this point. He did not feel that staff could give a firm date. The
cost of the facility will be higher. Another factor is that the service to clients which are not college students
is worse at this new location. When there were a number of alternatives identified, this location was twelfth
out of twelve.
Mr. Uppitt stated that there were two locations that the neighbors and staff had looked at earlier. One at
the eastern end of the parking lot in the center; the second one would expand the existing bus stop by the
administration office. On both of those alternatives, there was going to be a signal at Gotham. With this
alternative, there most likely will be a signal at Gotham.
Mayor Nader asked if there was any alternative that appeared to have a chance of being approved by all the
agencies which would not result in a signal at Gotham. Mr. Uppitt responded that the only one that would
not have a signal at Gotham was the original one which was the one in front, but the Council and college
did not like it.
Councilman Rindone stated that there was another critical issue which staff had to deal with. It was
possible that all efforts of the transit center might be abandoned and only an extension of the bus stop with
an increase in the number of buses which would be available there would be accomplished. It might be five
or ten years before this is readdressed. He had a concern that if this should happen that the signal would
be designed in such a way that we would not have to redesign it or do a major reconstruction for that signal.
MSUC (Rindone.INader) to refer to staff with the clirection to look at placing the ligna! at Gotham and OIay
Lakes Road with the caveat that it be designed u such that if the alternatift wu the atension of the
cmrent bus stop there would not need to be any additional wotk, thereby having accomplished both thiDgs
on an interim basis.
Mr. Rindone stated the purpose of the motion was to show we would be placing the signal there just u soon
as it is reasonable to get it designed and funded. This will be our next priority which addresses the
community that has been concerned about traffic issues there, and yet it does not hold it up because of the
transit center.
b. Petition protesting auto repair shop at 363 "Eo Street - Martin Torres, 178 Glover, Chula Vista, CA
91910-2515, and Heinz Hemken, 183 Glover, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2515. It is recommended that staff
meet with the residents and return to Council with a recommendation. Pulled from the O>nJellt Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated that staff recommended Council should refer this back to staff to meet with Mr. Torres.
His concern was that this was not the lint time Council has heard about this issue. He asked if staff had
a time line for conducting meetings with the neighborhood and getting a report back. Mr. Leiter stated staff
could report back to the Council within thirty days, and they could meet with Mr. Torres and the neighbors
prior to that.
. Heinz Hemken, 183 Glover Avenue, 91910, stated they had presented a request to close the entrance
on the alley to the property of 363 E Street where the automobile repair shop operates. The situation has
become very bad because of parking. This property does not have enough spaces to support three
businesses, two of which deal with automobiles.
Mayor Nader stated he knew this has been going on for a long time, but asked if another thirty days seem
unreasonable to him. Mr. Hemken responded it would be okay.
. Martin Torres, 178 Glover Avenue, 91910, stated he had called parking control because he could
not park in front of his own house. They came out, but ticketed everyone including the homeowners. He
stated the parking problem was serious.
~/T. 10
li-IO
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 3
MSUC (NaderlFox) to refer to IllIlf to meet with the ,...;r~, buIiDea CIWDC!n, and all interested parties.
When item comes back to Council in thirty clays, addrss cooctnII nIating to bIzanlous waste, if any; and
provide information concerning prior Council actions. .
Mayor Nader stated that any legal violation enforcement should not be delayed pending staff coming back
to Council; all legal violations should be dealt with at the time.
6. ORDINANCE 2541 AMENDING SECl10NS 12.24.020, 12.24.030, 12.24.040 AND 12.24.070
RELATING TO DEDICATION AND INSrAlJATION OF PUBlJC IMPROVEMENJ'S (leCond readin2 and
adoDtion) . Council requested that staff review Municipal Code Section 12.24.040 which provides the City
the ability to require street dedications and public improvements associated with building permits valued
at $10,000 or more. The review was to provide a recommendation for resetting the amount and
consideration of other facton. In addition, policy needs to be set regarding the limits of development on
private property before triggering the requirement to install or alter public improvements in the adjoining
right-of-way. Several years ago, Council accepted a staff report which included a recommendation that an
ordinance be brought back for adoption amending Municipal Code Section 12.24.070 to abolish the .
acceptance of surety bonds and accepting only cash bonds or liens as security for deferrals. It has been
discovered that the code change was never completed. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) Pullecl from the Commt Calendar.
Mayor Nader stated that he had one basic concern to raise from $10,000 to $20,000 the level of the building
permit that would trigger any of these requirements. There was language in the ordinance and resolution
which would add a requirement in all permits of $20,000 or more for the property owner to waive their right
to protest the subsequent formation of an assessment district improvements. He had a problem with this
if the building permit was not related to an improvement which triggered the need for the public
improvements that the subsequent assessment district would be formed for.
ORDINANCE 2541 WAS OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, readiDg of the tat was waived.
Councilman Fox asked if, under this ordinance, garage convenions would fall into the category of additional
square footage? City Engineer Swanson responded yes, it would fall under additional square footage as well
as additional bedrooms.
Councilman Moore stated that during the last eight yean, we have not allowed garage convenions.
VOTE ON MOTION: approvecl unanimously.
M (Nader) to refer the matter back to IllIlf to come back with an amendment which would delete the
requirement that a property owner waive bis/her right to protest a subsequent... "'''5lt district in
situatioDS where the buildiDg permit did not authorize &II)' additional clweIling space and where there was
no nexus between between the imJllvvement being made by the property owner and the neecl for &II)'
additional public facilities. Motion diecl for lack of a _d.
7. ORDINANCE 2542 ADDING SECl10NS 19.04.107 AND 19.58.178 TO, AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 19.14.070, 19.42.040, 19.44.040 AND 19.46.040 OF, 1liE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABUSH
DEFINI1l0NS, REQUIREMENIS AND PROCEDURES FOR 1liE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OP CONDmONAL
USE PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PACU11ES CIeCODd readin.. and adoDtion} . Punuant to State law
AB-2948 (Tanner, 1986), the City is required to adopt local provisions to implement the approved County
of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP). The proposed amendments establish the
necessary provisions for the management of hazardous waste and the siting and permitting of hazardous
waste facilities within the City, consistent with the COHWMP and State law. Staff recommends Council
place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
.~
I i- \ \
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 4
8. ORDINANCE 2543 AMENDINGSECl10NS2.36.010AND2.36.030OFlHEMUNlCPALCODE
R.ELAnNG 1'0 lHE ADVISORY DUTlES OP lHE HUMAN R.ELAnONS COMMISSION (second rudiM and
adoDtion) - In April 1992, the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT) Board directed staff to
investigate the ramifications of dissolving SCOOT. Both City and County Transit staffs find no negative
impacts to either the City or County if SCOOT were dissolved. One result of dissolution would terminate
the SCOOT Senior and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works)
9. ORDINANCE 2544 AMENDINGSOiEDtJI.EX, SECl10N 10.48.050 OFlHE MUNlCPAL CODE,
DECREASING srATE LAW MAXIMUM SPEED UMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS, MAIN SlREET/OTAY VAUEf
ROAD PROM 1-5 1'0 1-805 (lint rudinll) - In order to minimize traffic hazards and congestion and promote
public safety, speed prohibitions on these streets should be authorized by ordinance. A review of trial traffic
regulations initiated by the City Engineer under the authority of the Municipal Code show that these
regulations are operating effectively and should be made permanent. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinance on fIrSt reading. (Director of Public Works)
10. RESOLtmON 170m APPROPRIATING ADDI110NAL PUNDS PROM 1HE UNAPPROPRIATED PARK
AND ACQUlsmON DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (PAD) POR lHE DESIGN CONSTRUCl10N DOCUMENI'S AND
R.ELATED SERVICES POR GREG ROGERS PHASE IIMPROVEMENl" PROJECT, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
WI1liVAN DYKE AND ASSOaATES POR DESIGN D~PMENT, CONsrRUCl10N DEVELOPMENT AND
R.ELATED SERVICES POR GREG ROGERS PARX, ANP AI1IliORIZlNG lHE MAYOR 1'0 EXECUTE SAME -
The Greg Rogen Master Plan was approved by Council on 4/16/91. A landscape consultant is required to
prepare design and construction documents and other related services for the project. There are insufficient
funds in the appropriated Capital Improvement Project to complete the necessary services for the Phase I
improvement of the Greg Rogen Master Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of
Parks and Recreation) 4/5th's vote required. Pulled from the ~t Calendar.
Councilman Pox stated he had some procedural questions since this was the lint time he had seen this since
he had been on Council where we went out for solicitation for RFPs and awarding the RFP to Van Dyke and
Assoc where their bid came in at $52,700 and the ultimate cost was $66,000 because of changes that were
made which staff agreed with. Wasn't there normally a requirement that we go out for additional RFP's?
Parks and Recreationa Director, Jess Valenzuela, responded that staff considered going out, but decided that
the consultant could handle it. After consulting with the City Attorney, staff decided to expand the scope
of services. .
City Attorney Boogaard stated that it might have been a mandatory item if it had been a public works
project, but here we are just soliciting and advertising for design services in which we have more latitude.
He felt it was appropriate to negotiate design-type services and expand the scope of work during those
negotiations without having to go out and solicit for another consultant.
Councilman Rindone expressed he was very uncomfortable with that practice just from the ethical and
procedural basis that when a potential bidder is examined and especially when he is not the low bidder by
25% that staff would be doing other add-ons. City Manager, John Goss, responded that being the low bidder
was subject to interpretation in the sense that we actually got proposals as to how much it would cost. The
items which are add-ons are basically routine things that would be pretty much the same cost for any of the
ones that would have been included in making the proposals even though it would have been better if they
were included in the proposals in the lint place. But, you have to temper this with the fact that the Uttle
League is very concerned about the condition of their fields, and there is a desire to try to move ahead and
correct those conditions.
~~/';' -
1"""\-12-
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 5
Councilman Fox stated he had problems in changing the rules of the RFP after people have gone through
the process of putting a proposal together and then we change it and award it to someone who wasn't the
lowest bidder. He wanted to know what liabilities or problems we might encounter as a result of the change
of the rules. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it has been the practice in all cities to distinguish
between a Request for Proposal and the public works bidding process. In a RFP, you are asking for expertise
and qualifications. You are basically saying to the industry this is what we think we need, but give US your
proposal. After that proposal is submitted, they are basically sending in resumes of their qualifications and
an idea of how to achieve what we think we need. It is completely within the understanding of all parties
participating in the process that the team can be subjected to further negotiations with the city saying we
need to modify this to cover these other things. This is different from the public bidding process where we
tightly draw the bid specifications. This is not subject to further negotiations.
Councilman Fox stated that it seemed like there were things which came up after the proposal was made
which seemed was material to the request -- things like reimbursable expenses for copying, doing a title
report to find any easements, etc. They should have been part of the proposal.
Councilwoman Horton asked staff how they came up with the five people on the list. Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director, Jerry Foncerrada, responded that we had a committee of representatives from Building
and Housing, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments who short-listed the seventeen
candidates down to five. The five were invited in to make a presentation and to sell the committee as to
which one would be the best one to work with. Based on the rating criteria they had, that is how the
ranking came out with the five firms.
Councilwoman Horton stated she had called several different landscape architectural firms because she had
some questions regarding the contract with Van Dyke and other things. Part of the criteria w!ls based on
qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project, design approach. and fee proposals. The number two
firm came in as the lowest bidder, but because there are some other concerns that are expressed in the staff
report, staff decided the number one firm should be chosen based on concerns over and above the price.
Mr. Valenzuela stated that was correct, but they did take into consideration past performance by both of the
potential consultants, and they took into consideration how the price had escalated in one given project
beyond what staff felt was reasonable.
Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not arguing this point. She investigated this firm also and would
agree with staff and not hire them. However, in talking to one of the firms, a firm in which she placed in
high regard, they mentioned they had bid on this project. She found out his bid was $45,700. This was
a landscape architectural firm who had an excellent reputation in the industry and who has won several
awards in our city for past projects such as Discove'Y, Sunridge, and Scoby Parks. Based on staff's criteria,
we were picking a firm at $52,700 when we have a reputable firm that we could have hired at $45,700.
She wondered how many other firms were in the Same situation. Mr. Valenzuela responded that he could
provide Council with the criteria that was used to select the consultants for the short list. He ~ not aware
of the consultants who did not make the short list. Last year, the Mini-Brooks Act which is a state law
requires cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to select landscape architects or design consultants based
upon skill, ~ertise, histo'Y. proven track records, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated that evetything he named, this company has. In the industry, it is rated ve'Y
high. You knew when you picked the number two firm at $39,700 that they already had this reputation
within the city. So they shouldn't have even been on the list.
Mayor Nader asked if the Parks 8< Recreation Director was on the Selection Committee. He responded that
he was not.
~
\I-\~
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Goss suggested that this be referred back to staff to take a look how the Committee went from the
seventeen firms to the list of five firms to not include the firm which Councilwoman Honon pointed out.
There must have been some part of the process which objectively screened them to the five. It was a valid
question. which needed to be answered.
MS (NaderlPoZ) to refer to staff to develop a repon to be brought back to Council to include the following:
who all responded to the RPP, what were their bids, what was the aiteria fac DaJIOWiDg it down to the five
who were presented in the staff report. Also include iDformatioD as to who was on the Committee and any
other relevant information as to the deliberations of the Committee which might be helpful to Council in
evaluating the recommendation that was brought forth, or the ..- 1IIed for cIeterminina that
recommendation. Authorize, but not require, the City Manager, if information is deftloped which makes
such mOft appropriate, to list this as a Cosed SeraioD item for rniew of penoanel. If not, then it is to be
put on as a public item.
Councilman Moore felt that if Council was going to start questioning staffs decisions when there was
representation from three to five different depanments, it might be worth while for individual council
members to sit in on one of these processes.
Councilman Rindone stated that staff had indicated there was specific criteria in the selection made by the
composition of five members from five different depanments, and asked if that criteria had a weighted
factor? Mr. Foncerrada responded that they had weighted factors.
Mayor Nader stated that in the report coming back to Council that a description given of the weight given
to various factors and how that played out in the process should be included.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
11. RESOLlmON 17008 GRANllNG /IN OPEN SPACE ENCROAaiMENT TO ItJLOW
SUPPLEMENTAL LIlNDSCAPING IN OPEN SPACE LOT B OF OPEN SPACE D1STRICf 20, RIlNOiO DEL REY
SPA I, PHASE 2 . California Pacific Homes of San Diego (formerly Bren) is requesting that the City allow
the installation of supplemental landscaping along the south side of Ridgeback Road, opposite Bonita Vista
Middle School. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
12. RESOLtmON 17009 APPROVING /IN AGREEMEm" WJnI TIiE SOUlll BAY BRIlNOi OF TIiE
YOUNG MEN'S OiIUS'IlIlN ASSOaATION (YMCA) FOR TIiE LEASE OP CERTAIN PROPERlY IN
EUCALYP1US PARK - The City and the South Bay branch of the YMCA had a five-year agreement for the
property at 50 Fourth Avenue which expired on 5/13/91. The City and YMCA have been operating under
a lease on a year-to-year basis. Staff has renegotiated a five.year lease with the YMCA. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation)
13. RESOLtmON 17010 AUllIORlZlNG PAYMENT TO TIiE METItOPOIJT/IN 'I1l.IlNSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MI'DB) FOR TIiE INITIAL Q1Y SHARE OF TIiE COST OF TIiE MAIN STREET
UNDERPASS PROJECf - The payment of $330,000 to MIDB is an initial share of bridge construction and
street improvement costs for Main Street east of Industrial Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works)
~)r-
li-I~
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 7
14. RESOLUTION 17011 SUPPOIl11NG 1liE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIA'DON OF GOVERNMENI'S
(SANDAG) IN 1liE SUBMlTrAL OP AN APPIJCATION POll GRANT PUNDS UNDER 1liE PROPOSl11ON 116
aBAN AIR AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT N:f, B1CYa.E PROGRAM . The Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement Act (CATIAl make. available $20 million state-wide to fwid a five-year program
of competitive grants to local agencies for capital ouday for bicycle improvement projects which improve
safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. On 11120/92, SANDAG submitted an application for
Proposition 116 Bicycle Funds totalling $750,000 for a portion of the Bay Route Bikeway known as the
Sweetwater River crossing. The CA TIA requires that a local public agency adopt a resolution approving the
submittal. In accordance with said requirements, SANDAG has requested that the City support the subject
application. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15.A. RFSOLU'I10N 17012 REVISlNGTENrA11VEMAPCONDmONOPAPPROVALEOPafULAVlSTA
'mAcr 92-05 AND CONDmON OP APPROVAL I.1 OF afULA VISTA 'mAcr 93-01 (RESOUTnON 16900) -
On 11/11/92, by Resolution 16900, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Maps for Tracts 92-05 and
93-01, Rancho del Rey Commercial Center west and east, respectively. The final maps and associated
agreements for both subdivisions are now before Council for approval. SUff recommends Council continue
the item to 3/9/93. (Director of Public Works)
B. RFSOLU'I10N 17013 APPROVING 1liE PINAL MAP AND SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENr AND Al.m-IORIZlNG 1liE MAYOR TO SIGN 1liE MAP AND EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENr POR
'mAcr 92-05, RANCiO DEL REV COMMERCIAL CI!NI'I!R WEST
C. RFSOLU'I10N 17014 APPROVING 1liE PINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND Al.m-IORIZlNG 1liE MAYOR TO SIGN 1liE MAP AND EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENrPOR
'mAcr 93-01, RANCiO DEL REV COMMERCIAL CI!NI'I!R EAST
D. RFSOLUTION 17015 APPROVING SUPPlJ!MENTAL SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMI!NT AGREEMENI"S
TO SATISFY CONDmONS OP APPROVAL M, N, 0 AND P OP 'mAcr 92-OS AND CONDmONS OP
APPROVAL S, T, U AND V OP 'mAcr 93-01 AND AUlHORIZlNG 1liE MAYOR TO EXECl1I'E SAME
E. RFSOLU'I10N 17016 AUlHORIZlNG 1liE MAYOR TO EXECUTE DEEDS Qurra.AlMlNG ANY
11nE INTERFSr IN PROPERnES TO BE OWNED BY THE 01liER PARnES SIGNING 1liE MAPs APTER
RECORDATION OP SAID MAPS
16. RFSOUTnON 17017 AUlHORIZlNG n:MPORARY a.ostJRE AT MOSS snumT CROSSING POR
1liE METROPOIJTAN 11tANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) SOtmi lJNE GRADE CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT - The MTDB has issued a change order to add the Moss Street crossing to the 'South Line
Grade Crossing Improvement Project, LRT-299.' National Projects, Inc. has requested two temporary
weekend closures to complete the necessary work with minimal delays to motorists. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. RFSOUTnON 17018 APPROVING A SEWER SERVICE AND STORM DRAIN OiARGE REFUND
POR 1liE RANCiO BONITA MOBILE HOME PARXPORPISCAL YEAR (PY) 1991-92; ANDAPPROPRlA11NG
AN ADDmONAL $16,633.10 INTO FUND 223, 1liE MONTGOMERYSEWERSERVlCE REVENUE FUND AND
$5,810.65 INTO FUND 227, 1liE STORM DRAIN REVENUE FUND . In FY 1991.92, the Rancho Bonita
Mobile Home Park, located at 600 Anita Street, was incorrecdy billed for sewer service and storm drain
charges on the tax bills for parcels 622-041-19-00 and 622-091.24.00. They paid the full amounts and are
~
\'\-IS
M1Nl.rJ'ES
March 2, 1993
Page 8
entitled to a refund of $17,710.52 for the overpayment. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
18. REPORT CTY INI11ATION OP A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO RESOLVE
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCY PORA PORTION OF SPECALS'IUDY AREAB-4. WESTOP
PIFni AVENUE, EAST OF BROADWAY. ALONG BOlli SIDES OP PARX WAY AND "G" STREET - Alex
Galchenko, representing property at 570-576 Park Way, has requested initiation of a General Plan
Amendment to resolve an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning for the subject property. Mr.
Galchenko's property is located amidst a larger area of such inconsistency, located between Pifth Avenue and
Broadway along both sides of Park Way and "G" Street. Staff recommends Council direct the Planning
Department to initiate a General Plan Amendment and rezone for the area indicated. (Director of
Planning)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOumONS AND ORDINANCltc:
19. PUBUC HEARING PCM-93-07: RECONSIDERATION OP PROPOSAL TO CHANGE lHE NAME
OP OTAY LAKES ROAD BIITWEEN n:JEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND WUESTE ROAD TO n:JEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD - CTY INI11ATED . On 1/12/93, Council approved changing the name of Otay Lakes Road
between Telegraph Canyon Road and Wueste Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. It was later determined that
the residents of Otay Lakes Lodge Mobile Home Park had not been notified. The Council, therefore, directed
that the matter be noticed and reconsidered. Staff recommends Council approve the resolution to become
effective on 9/1/93 and direct staff to continue to work with the County to have the name changed in the
unincorporated area east of Wueste Road. (Director 0{ Planning)
RESOumON 17019 CHANGING lHE NAME OF OTAYLAKES ROAD TO 'lmEGRAPH CANYON
ROAD BIITWEEN n:JEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND WUESTE ROAD
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Addressing Council in
opposition to the renaming of Otay Lakes Road were:
* Mike Sweeney, Jr., 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 36. (His letter is on file in the Clerk's Office).
. James R. Quinn, 1925 Olay Lakes Road, Space 34, President of the Golden State Mobilehome group
in the Park. He stated that he represented 119 residents, and ninety percent of the residents were opposed
to this.
. Janet Squires, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, Space 93. She stated she represented 196 families in the Olay
Lakes Lodge. These residents are strongly opposed to the name change. Many of them are senion and will
need assistance in dealing with the numerous changes to the various legal documents.
. A letter had been received prior to the meeting from Frederick Dufresne, 1925 Otay Lakes Road,
Space 102.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
* * * (Councilwoman Horton arrived) * * *
-I/'- 1. -
-~
\'\-Ic..,
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 9
Councilman Moore stated he was the one who made the motion to consider the name change. When
looking at this area, he looked at one address, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, rather than 196 homes. He felt the
name change would help those coming to the Olympic Training Center and to the new hospital. If the name
was to be changed, it should be done early before these organizations spent a lot of money on their
brochures and advertising. He felt if Council wanted to approve the name change, then the effective date
could be extended whereby the post office would accept either address until January I, 1995.
Councilman Rindone felt the name should be changed to East L Street all the way. If we are going to be
one city, then we should make this East L. Then there would be continuity throughout the city.
MS (RindOD~orton) to return this to staff to look at ......l.1g 1he entire.section "I." Slreet.
SlJBS'111UI'E MOTION: MS (Moore/Nader) to me the ita1.
Councilwoman Horton stated that if we want to make a change, it should be down now. She would not vote
for the substitute motion.
Mayor Nader stated that no one outside the government has come to state there was a problem. If and
when a time should come when that happened, then he supported getting more information.
SlJBS'111UI'E MOTION WAS APPROVED 3-2 (Rindone and Horton opposed).
ORAL COMMUNlCAnONS
" Jean Weissman, 296 Dolphin Cove, Del Mar, 92014, representing the Local Government Commission.
This was a membership organization which included about 400 local governments and elected officials in
California. Currently, they are acting as a consultant to the San Diego Air Quality Control District. Their
project is to develop a program to control indirect sources of air pollution in San Diego County. Out of this
may come a rule that will affect Chula Vista along with the other cities. Her purpose was to alert the
Council that this is coming and to ask for Council's active participation in the planning process. This project
is mandated by the California Clean Air Act which authorizes local air control districts to require sources
of pollution to obtain air quality permits. She stated that they did not want to impose a solution upon the
cities in this county without their input. She hoped the Council would attend the four regional workshops
which will be held in San Diego County within the next several months. Council will be receiving a letter
with the times and places.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDAnONS
None submitted.
ACnON ITEMS
20. RESOL1TI10N 17020 CONCEPTUALLY APPROVING 1HE PUNDlNG NOT TO EXCEED $700,000
TO SOtmiBAy COMMUNITY SERVlCPS FOR ACQtnSl110N AND FIRST-YEAR OPERA nON COSTS OF A
POURTEEN UNIT APARTMENT BUIlDING AT 31 POURTH AVENUE TO BE USED AS A SHORT 'mRM
HOUSING PACL1TY - South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is interested in acquiring a 14-unit apartment
complex to develop a short-term housing facility to serve homeless families in the South Bay. The site is
adjacent to the transitional housing project which will enable both projects to be managed together. It is
also close to National City, which has been contacted to financially participate in the project. SBCS is
-'-8' / 7
\'i-\\
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 10
submitting grants for county, state, and federal funds and needs conditional site approval. Staff,.-mm....'Ils
Council continue the item. {Director of Community Development)
MSUC (ItinclcIMIMoore) to continue the item to Mard1 9, 1993.
Councilman Rindone stated that when the original apartment complex was submitted to Council, it was
alleged that this was not a project for the homeless. It was a project that would provide transitional
housing. Chula Vista needs to do something about the homeless, but this is a regional issue and should be
dealt with regionally. He requested that we don't just jump in because it appears the project is changing.
One city working alone cannot resolve this problem. He wanted to know what SANDAG was doing and
wanted a very thorough analysis when this comes back.
Councilman Fox stated that he shared Mr. Rindone's concern that this is a regional issue. He spoke with
Ms. Lembo regarding this, she stated there were going to be provisions in the program to assure that the
families taking advantage of this program are going to be from the South Bay. When the proposal comes
back, he wanted staff to make sure that we are serving a population that is coming from our area.
Councilman Moore stated that the original policy of SANDAG was a fair share of low and moderate housing.
Some cities do not participate in the low and very low income. He felt the staff should bring back as part
of the repon the statistics for low, very low, transitional, and homeless in the eighteen cities in the County.
This would give the Council some background on the fair share.
Mayor Nader expressed that SANDAG was exacerbating the situation by supporting a moratorium on the
development of affordable housing on the Otay Mesa for the purpose of further studying an airport to be
built by the Partner who has already rejected the idea. Councilman Moore responded that it was not
SANDAG but City of San Diego. Mayor Nader stated that it was not the SANDAG Board, but SANDAG staff.
From the contacts he has had with the South Bay Community Services, they are seeking regional
contributions to this project and that it is designed to serve primarily South Bay families.
21.A. RFSOLtmON 17021 FINDING A SHORTAGE OF SAFE AND SANITARY DWEUJNG
ACCOMMODATIONS AVAIlABLE TO PERSONS OF LOW INCOME AT RENT LEVELS 1HEY CAN AFFORD,
DECLARING 1HE NEED FOR A CHULA VISTA HOUSING AUTHORf1Y TO FUNCTION, DETERMINING 1HE
POWERS AND DlJI'IES OF 1HE HOUSING AUTHORf1Y, AND DECLARING 1HE QTY COUNCI. TO BE 1HE
COMMISSIONERS OF 1HE HOUSING AUTHORf1Y .In order to gain further insight into the formation of a
Housing Authority, staff has been in contact with representatives of the County Housing Authority, other
city housing authorities, and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). StafI's
review and analysis indicates that procedurally, the City must tint form a housing authority and designate
officers and staff to serve the authority by resolution under Section 34200 of the Government Code. Staff
recommends approval of the resolutions. {Director of Community Development)
B. RESOLtmON 17022 DESIGNATING OFFICERS AND STAFF TO SERVE 1HE CHULA VISTA
HOUSING AUTHORf1Y
Councilman Moore asked if we voted on this tonight, are we saying that we will not take any official
increased cost, increase staff, increase office spaces until it comes back to Council in two years when we are
ready to be self supporting? Community Development Director, Chris Salomone, responded that it would
be inaccurate to say that there would not be some cost. Existing staff would be coordinating activities,
County Housing Authority would be operating the program until we have gotten an allocation from the
federal government of enough units to be self supporting. There will be minor costs, such as administrative,
but they will be easily absorbed by existing staff.
Councilman Moore stated he had concern with the cost. Have we asked the County to allocate any units?
Mr. Salomone stated those discussions have taken place, but they would not support that. They do not want
to lose the staff and the fees.
..J..8' ., fj L.
ll- ,~
M1NlT1'ES
March 2,1993
Page 11
CoWlcilman Moore asked if that meant they will have to lay someone off if we collect the next two hWldred
units under our jurisdiction? Mr. Salomone responded that that will not happen. This is the advantage of
this. As it grows, their existing staff keeps their fee.
Councilman FOll asked if the administrative fee of 8.2 percent of the monthly subsidies was when it reached
200. Then what would be the fee before it reached 2oo? Housing Coordinator, Juan Arroyo, responded that
any new certificate which the city acquired over time, everyone can charge 8.2 percent of the monthly rent.
This could be used to cover administrative cost. That fee becomes available to the City upon any new
certificate.
Councilman FOll stated that if the County was administering the certificates until the City reached the 200
point, who would get the 8.2 percent? Councilman Moore responded that they use the 8.2%. When we say
we are going to take over, then they cease and we step in.
Councilman FOll asked what other specific duties will the Commission have other than the administrative
ones listed in the staff report. Mr. Salomone responded that the grievance hearings will be conduc;ted by
staff; the Council or Commission will not have to get involved in those. The Housing Authority Committee
would be the last court of decision on appeals.
Councilman Moore asked how many cities had housing authorities where the elected officials were the
Authority? Mr. Arroyo stated that most cities do not have Housing Authorities. Only Carlsbad, Oceanside,
and National City have their own Authority whereby the Council is the Authority.
Mr. Salomone stated that the Authority will not have the workload that the Redevelopment Agency does.
The Authority would be involved in grant applications, approving contracts with HUD for administration of
the housing certificates, bond issues, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated she was in support of the staff's recommendation. She felt that as a start up
siNation this was the best route to take to get this program going. She was jrlad to see Chula Vista forming
its own Housing Authority. However, she would like to have staff come back with a Vision, Mission
Statement, and specific Goals. Also important would be to have staff come back on a regular basis, even
monthly, with a report letting Council know what has been transpiring - for example, what has staff been
.doing, what grants have been applied for, what type of funding has staff been able to get. '
Councilman Rindone asked if the County will still have jurisdiction in Chula Vista for the previous housing
units under them which would result in overlapping jurisdictions. Mr. Salomone stated this was correct.
Councilman Rindone asked if staff saw any problems with that? Mr. Salomone stated there could be
resultant confusion among the tenants. However, this is the format which has been followed by many cities
throughout the United States and is a typical process as a city grows away from the County jurisdiction on
housing. We will be creating a new constiNency of housing tenants in the City who will come to us for all
kinds of housing needs. The County people who are on the County Section 8 program have been certified,
have been qualified, and assigned to a case worker at the County. They have a strong communication with
that person. It is not likely that those people who are on that program will come to the City. . There will
be overlapping jurisdictions; there are a thousand Section 8 units in the City that are subsidized under the
County Housing Authority. .
Councilman Rindone requested that staff, if this is approved, contact other cities to see the extent of what
that problem would be. If it is a problem, how have they addressed it. He also asked, on a regional basis,
ifwe would be duplicating fixed costs? Is this a concern overal1? There is a school of thought that the best
delivery system on a regional basis might ultimately be more cost effective. He would want to know the net
impact on that and if it has been looked at. Mr. Salomone responded that if you look at Section 8
administration which is the HUD program, there are regional economies. One of the predominate reasons
for becoming an Housing Authority is to give us the chance to go after the money which is offered only to
Housing Authorities and to create projects and programs locally that are afforded by the federal government
and other agencies only to Housing Authorities.
-Ir~/'-
V'''"\-I'1
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Goss felt that one of the things on regionalism has to do with the fact that it is better to eliminate all
the chiefs and have only one. We are creating a new housing authority director with all the management
and administrative hierarchy fitting in what we already have. There are no new positions being created in
that respect.
Councilman Rindone stated he did not want Council to contribute to the cost of government. He did not
want to create another layer of government. He was swayed when you can become proactive for our
community in getting grants in what is called 'soft money" to contribute it to general entitlement and
funding of your programs.
Mayor Nader asked if seven memben was the number which was required by state law for the Housing
Advisory Commission? City Attorney, Bruce Boogaard, responded that state law states you have to have
seven and because you have chosen a five member authority consisting of the City Council then you will
have to have a seven member Housing Advisory Committee. Two of them must be tenants and if there are
tenants who are 62 or older then one of memben must be 62 or older.
Mayor Nader stated that the present Housing Advisory Committee is a seven member committee appointed
by the Mayor with Council ratification. There is currently one vacancY. He does not know if any of the
remaining six memben are tenants who would fulfill one of the requirements for these two tenant seats
within State law. If that is the case, then by holding the current vacancy open, we could assure what people
are getting at.
Councilman Moore asked ifwe were talking about Section 8 only? What about the other housing units that
the County has been working with us such as the HUD family units on F Street, Melrose, and Dorothy? Do
they retain oveneeing those? Mr. Salomone stated they will retain ownenhip of those projects. In the
future, we will be able to do those projects on our own without the County's assistance.
Councilman Moore asked if Section 8 was basically rental units and what happens when a number of them
move, relocate, or pass away? Mr. Salomone responded that they are rental subsidy. Those people have a
certificate in place until they no longer qualify for that certificate. They would be disqualified if their
income increased. This would be effective anywhere in the County. Mr. Arroyo stated that anyone who has
a certificate can move to any other jurisdiction. Upon moving to another jurisdiction, the original authority
maintains 20 percent of the fee. Ukewise, Chula Vista could administer the certificate coming into the City,
then we would receive 80 percent of the fee.
Councilman Moore stated that staff has listed the sequence of actions on the staff report. The vote tonight
will accomplish the tint one. Does that mean the other four will come back sometime in the next two
yean? Mr. Salomone stated that aCNally the tint two will take place tonight. On the next three, we will
come back as speedily as possible with the By-laws and other issues.
Mr. Rindone stated that when you come back, it will aCNally be the tint meeting of the Housing Authority.
Mr. Salomone responded that was correct.
RESOLtmON 17021 and 17022, OFFERED BY COUNCLMAN RINDONE, ruding of the tat was waiftd,
passed, and approved .m.....imously.
MSUC (Hortol\lRindone) for ItlIff to come back on a monthly basis with a report and when they come back
to the Dm meeting haft the VISion, Mission Statement, and Goals.
Councilman Moore stated that something might not take place for a year or so.
Councilwoman Horton responded not necessarily. Staff should, once they get the program going, be out
looking for grant funds or financing for the programs.
Councilman Moore stated he had a problem asking staff to do another job in a short time frame when they
don't have the staff to do well with now.
~
1'1 - "2..0
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 13
Mr. Goss asked staff if there was any major workload implications or limitations based on what was being
requested by the motion? Mr. Salomone stated he did not. The Authority will be established tonight. The
other activities such as seeking funds and applying for grants are things we would normally due and assume
as part of our workload. Mr. Goss stated the additional workload would be the monthly report which should
probably be a rather simple routine thing to do.
Mayor Nader stated that although it will be two years before we accumulate the number of Section 8
subsidies that we would take those over, the situation has been that the City has on staff a full.time Housing
Coordinator and the creation of the Housing Authority puts some new tools in his arsenal to do his existing
job. The way he interprets the motion on the floor is a request from the Councll, which constitutes itself
as the Housing Authority for the City, for at least a monthly report from existing staff on how it is going
about planning to make use of that new tool.
MOTION CARRJED UNANIMOUSLY.
rIEMS PUU.ED PROM 1HE CONSENT CALENDAR
(NOTE: Pulled from the Consent Calendar were items number Sa, Sb, and 10. Although they were
discussed at this point, the minutes are transcribed to reflect the published agenda order).
OTHER BUSINESS
22. CI1Y MANAGER'S REPORTCS}
Mr. Goss stated that the Parks and Recreation Department had received two achievement awards. One was
an achievement award for the design of the Norman Park Senior Center. It has now been recognized by the
California Park and Recreation Sodety District Twelve. The other was an award for innovation programming
for Project Care which is a new partnership program for senior dtizens and disabled living alone in Chula
Vista who need the assistance of community partners. .
23. MAYOR'S REPORTCS)
Mayor Nader stated that while he was in Irapuato, our sister dty, he had a chance to meet with the new
Mayor to catch up on activities involving our sister dty exchange program, specifically our summer student
sodal work exchange funded by the Kellogg Grant. He had an opportUnity to be interviewed by local radio
and to express his opinion that the announced rejection of Twin ports by the Federal Government in Mexico
was an example of how we can work together on border environmental issues.
Mayor Nader will be attending the National League of Cities meeting in Washington D.C. and will be absent
on March 9th.
The Council secretary polled the Council for potential meeting dates and times to interview Commission
applicants those being Growth Management and Montgomery Planning. Date and time selected was
Monday, March 22 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
24. COUNCL COMMEm'S
Councilman Moore stated he had a spedal meeting today regarding a different way to attack graffiti at no
cost to the dty except for their staffs time. He will be asking for a letter to go out to the major companies
such as the City of Chula Vista and National City, utility companies, etc. to ask them to support the program.
A copy will be put on each of their desks.
-J 'K' ,;./
1'\-')..\
- ~. ..
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 14
eoun...1m.n Rindone stated he was a member of a local service club. Today they heard the Music Machine
from Bonita Vista High School. They were outstanding. He suggested that they be invited to receive a
Proclamation recognizing what they have done, in particular, the fact that they have been selected as one
of the very few competing groups in a major competition next week. He would like to invite them to a four
o'clock meeting, open the meeting, then adjourn to outside so they would have room to do a pedormance
and have it video taped for television.
Mayor Nader suggested that staff contact the Music Machine to make arrangements to include them as part
of the program for the April meeting. He suggested that if the Agenda was heavy that they come before the
meeting and still have it included in the video tape for television.
Councilman Moore suggested that they sing the Chula Vista official song.
Cotm...1m.n Poz. He had no comments.
Councilwoman Horton. She has been talking to some developers who had a problem with staff. Their
complaint was that they bring in a project and then mid.stream a new staff person is assigned to the project.
At that point, the whole plan is changed. Sometimes the changes are legitimate, but many times these
changes cost the developer a lot of money and a lot of time. Ultimately, it is the homeowner or consumer
who pays for this. She would like staff to come back with a report as to how we can eliminate this problem.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to a Redevelopment Agency meeting. Following the Redevelopment
Agency meeting the Council adjourned to a Closed Session to discuss-the following items:
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Roller VI. the City of Chula Vista.
Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - EDCO Disposal Corp. VI. Laidlaw
Waste Systems, Inc., Sweetwater Union High School District, and the City of Chula Vista.
The City Council adjourned the Closed Session to the Regular City Council meeting on March 9, 1993 at
6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
" ReZitfully JZrtbtCl
B~thelet, CMC
City Clerk
-
A..t~
\\-'2-'-
;;11;;l.t1I'l~1'l1 Ii
GREG ROGERS PARK
RANKING BY INDEPENDENT RATER
POINTS
FEE
1. Heimburger-Hirsch
2. Nowell-Thompson
3. BSI
4. Schmidt
5. Estrada
6. KTU + A
7. Delorenzo
8. Dike
9. Van Dyke
10. Wiley
11. Garbini
12. Tatsumi
13. Maloney
14. Teshima
15. Marum
16. Stone-Fisher
17. ONA
91
88
88
84
80
80
76
71
61
60
59
58
49
49
47
45
38
$33,400
$32,400
$107,000
$47,430
$68,071
$53,500
$39,700
$39,000
$41,500-$59,500
$29,600
$61,025
$29,800
$69,724
$57,600
$48,070
$58,500
$45,700
~
I, ~ 2.~
,
ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
. "
'" lotJce Is hereby gtven that the City ofChula Vista wl1l recelve at the offlce of the Director of Parks and
~ .tea'eatJon. 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. Cal1fomla. proposals to prov1de laridscape archltectural
services for specJflcatJons. working draWIngs and construcUon bid documenta n-wsary for Greg
Rogers Master Plan In the City of Chula Vista. Proposals must be recelved by 5:00 n.m.. October 16.
~.
Submlsslon of a proposal wl1l not constJtute a bid or conUnulng otTer. The party submltUng a proposal
will not be contractually responsible to the City and may withdraw the proposal at any Ume without
obligatJon. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or enter In to an agreement with
the party submlttlng the proposal which. In the oplnlon and sole dlscretJon of the City. wl1l best serve
the public interest. Such evaluatJon wl1l Include. but not be 1lmlted to. experience. business
reputatJon. overa1J quallflcatJons. the proposal submltted. and other informatJon obtained through
background JnvestJga tJon of proposers. It Is understood that the dty wl1l not compensate partJes for
submISsion of letters.
I. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Profect DescrlotJon
Greg Rogers Park is a 47 acre community park that SelVes the southern portJon of the
City ofChula Vista. It was opened September 11. 1962 and was the first park deVeloped
In Chula Vista as a Joint-use facUlty between the dty and the school distrlct. The park
has various uses and fac1l1tJes that Include. little league fields. Boys and Girls Club
facllltJes. picnIc areas. playground and a general malntenance area.
A Master Plan was developed by GUlesple-Delorenzo In 1991 and approved by Council.
The Master Plan proposed a two-phase development project, however. due to funding. the
Master Plan Will be developed over a 5-year perlod. Funding Is avallable In FY 92-93 to
prepare constructJon documents. specl1lcatJons and bid documents for Phase I
construction In FY 93-94. The revised five year constructJon phasing schedule Is as
follows:
113.114 AMOUNT
Relocate power line. . 50.000
Grading 90.000
UlI1Jty atub-oull 40.000
Bueballlleld. (4) and ac:ceuor1el 152.730
Slope planUng 89.830
Turf planUng and lrr1gatlon/ballllelda . 194.050
ConUngenc:y (15%). MobWzatlon 15%) 112.000
TOTAL . 558.880
J./ ~hi
,
Wl'C r:"-\porDn<\A1l2
Page 1
-J.3:.,1. r
l'\ -"-'4 J.
,
.
NotS .AMOUNT
Parldng Iotlmprovement/balllleld . 111.8$4
Removal or park neldence/exlatInC playground 10.000
Orand.tand Maung/athletlc aomplex J 87.500
Conungency (I5~1. MobWzaUon l~) 82.000
TOTAL . 1'11.134
85088 .AMOUNT
Demo or exlaUng rwlToom. exlaUng parklng lot. v- rlon buIIcltng . 12.000
Replacement or aod. \rrtpUon demo areu 10.800
New re.lToom 120.000
New aonc:eealon atand 135.000
New malntenance radllly 150.000
New puldng lot 34.000
ConUngency (I5~). MoblllzaUon (50/0) 82.000
TOTAL . 553.800
88-87 AMOUNT
PleNe .helten (20 x 40) . 45.500
PleNe .helten (3) (15 x 20) 106.500
CreaUve playground 75.000
Concrete picniC tables 14,400
Shelter pleNe table. 4.900
Puk aceeasorlea. barbecue grUls. trash receptacle. benches. 'dr1nIdng fountain. 73.680
barbecue pita. entry monument
Upgrade or park ln1puon ayatem:
School ground. 66.870
Park turf 163.170
Park alopea 68,460
Addtllonal treea 79.500
Contingency (I5~), MobWzaUon (~) 140.000
TOTAL . 788.01S0
F:"-~\A8:l
Page 2
~
\\_~S
"
II
11'7'" AIIOVI'IT
Concrete walkway. . 1&4.850
Decompoee pnIte lnII '.048
Secw1ty II&hUn, lhroua:hOUI park 44.000
ParIdna: Iota IIchUng . 24.000
BaWleJd lIghung 180.000
ConUn&ency (lS'KI). MobWatlon (S'K>) 84.000
TOTAL 1 502.188
I
QRAJm TOTAL
12.'754.7112 ij
B. Reaulrements
The selected landscape architect will be required to perform the following tasks. In
accordance wtth City of Chula Vista standards and the latest Federal mandate of the
Americans wtth DlsabilltJes Act (ADA).
1. Prepare constructJon drawtngs for Phase I construction including but not l1mIted
to:
a. SpeclficatJons for proposed construction and planning will Include
standards for materials and installation and methods of InstallatJon.
b. Final Cost Estimates which will be ItemiZed and be based on final working
drawings.
c. Plans must be prepared on "D" sheet (2' x 3') size mylar with standard City
border. Mylars are available In the Public Works Department.
d. Drawings shall Include electrical. demolltJon. lite. grading. landscaping.
structural. clearing and grubbing. Irr1gatJon. and as-buJlts.
2, Fulflll requirements for construction bid documents. using City's format with
input from City stafl'.
3. f'rov1de all surveylng.lfneeded. for preparation of plans and construction of the
project. Surveying shaD be done by a professional engineer or licensed land
surveyor.
4. Assist City in the preparation and taking of construction bids.
5. Assist City In adm1nlsterlng constructJon project by making site vtslts on an as-
needed basis.
I
WPC r:"-,,"",,",,\aS.1l2
Page 3
If ~~(,
\ .., ~ "2..-(.".
-
..
6. Particlpate In conferences With City stafT. Park View IJtUe League for the
development of drawings and plana.
'I
C.
Prooosal Fonnat
Proposals (four copies) shall contain the following:
I, ArchJtect-Engineer fonna 254 and 255.
2. A negoUable time schedule for compleUon of Phase J drawtngs and plans.
3. The flnn's approach to completing t~ed herein. With .pedal emphasis
placed on creaUv1ty.low ma1ntenan~ to e:xtemalSWTOundlngS. vandal
resistance. and cost efi'ectlveness.
4, Names and quallfications of consultant team who will be d1rect1y Involved In the
proj ect.
5. A cost estimate for each consultant tised for the serv1ce to be performed.
All proposals will be reViewed. screened. and evaluated by a Selection Conunlttee. nus
conunlttee will select five candidates It considers most quallfled to be lnterv1cwcd. These
candidates must submit three samples of stm1lar work dealing With park redesign prior
to the Interv1ew.
D. Selection Criteria
1. The followtng criteria shall be used In selecting the firm ultimately chosen for this
project:
2. Qualifications of the spcclfic Indlv1duals who will work on the projcct.
3. Demonstrated record of success by the consultant on work prev10usly performed
for the City and/or other munlclpallties or enterprises.
4. Ability to prov1de General Uablllty Insurance and Prof~slonal UabUlty Insurance
(Errors and Omissions).
Based on the Interv1ew and Information submitted. the conunIttec will make a flnaJ
selection. The chosen flnn shall enter Into flnal negotiations With the D1rec:tor of Parks
and Recreations or his representative. Both parties shall define the exact conditions of
the contract scope. work plan. schedule. fees. and methods of payment. After completion
of these negotiations. a City of Chula Vista standard two-party contract will be presented
to the city councU for approval.
E. J're-Prooosal Contact
Consultants are encouraged to contact MartIn Schmidt. Landscape ArchJtect at (619)
691-5071 regarding clarification of this request for proposals or additional Information.
WI'C ,:_\jIorDrI<\BS.1I2
Page 4
~~-.2. ?
-.
11-"'2-1
j"' j"\...-',,:'\,
'GREG ROGERS PARK
INTERVIEW FORM
To:
I/.ttrI.Iimi., GrollpJ
o..'JIer:
Interview Score Sheet
ISSl'E Poinu Awarded Possible Poinu
J. Similar project experience 10
2. Discussion of the firm's capacity to perform the work. 10
3. A discussion of the firm's understanding of the project needs. 20
4. Discussion ofthe methods the firm proposes to use in ,
providing the required services. I 10
S. A discussion of consultants that may be working with
the firm on the project. I 10
6. Discussion of how the firm will handle the planning. I
design. and construction phases of the project. Discuss
dcsign approach, construction COSt controls. and invoh'ement 30
in thc design and implementation phases of the work.
7. Discussion oftime schedule the firm proposes to complete I
the necessary preliminary work. IS well IS I time schedule 10
for thc entire project.
Notes:
TOTAL 100
Intervicwcr: Finn:
5
~
I, -"2-~
-
"
a
~%II
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCil. AGENDA STATEMENT
.,
Item
Meeting Date 3f2193
rrEM 'ITI1.E: Resolution Appropriating additional funds from the
unappropriated Park and Acquisition Development Funds (PAD) for the
design construction documents and related services for Greg Rogers Phase I
Improvement Project, and
Approving an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Van Dyke and
Associates for design development, construction development and related
services for Greg Rogers Park.
SUBMll HID BY: Director of Parks and Recreati~
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes..!... No_)
The Greg Rogers Master Plan was approved by Council on April 16, 1991. A landscape consultant
is required to prepare design, construction documents and other related services for the project.
There are insufficient funds in the appropriated CIP to complete the necessary services for the Phase
I improvement of the Greg Rogers Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution which:
1. Appropriates $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds to complete the necessary
design construction, document development, and related services for the Phase I
improvements; and
2. Authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement with Van Dyke and Associates for
consultant services for Greg Rogers Park Phase I.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: In 1990, the Rancho del Sur Partnership commissioned a landscape architectural firm
to Master Plan Greg Rogers Park. The Master Plan was a condition in the Public Facilities Financing
Plan, approved by Council on February 20, 1990. The Master Plan Study received extensive input
from three community meetings and the school faculty at Greg Rogers School. The conceptual plan
was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in February, 1991, and by Council on April
16, 1991. As per Council's request, a proposed phasing scheme for the implementation of the plan
was developed. A five-year capital improvement phasing schedule was proposed, with the initial
phasing to begin in FY 92/93 for the Phase I Improvement Design.
IF_-"".9J1
j
The Greg Rogers Master Plan addressed the park needs to improve the ballfields, parking, picnic
facilities, restroom, relocation of maintenance building, enhancement of play lots, and other park
amenities. The estimated cost of the total improvements was $3.4 million, with. the improvements
incrementally phased over a five-year period.
For FY 1992-93, $46,000 was appropriated for Phase I, which includes design, construction documents
and related services. Phase II funding for the improvements is proposed for the 1993-94 Capital
Improv~ment Program. These improvements would include: relocation of power lines; grading of
ballfield areas; utility slab-out for future snack bar/restroom and storage facility; construction of four
baseball fields and accessories; slope planting, turf, and irrigation; and the construction of a ballfield
parking lot. At an estimated construction cost of $700,000, funding for the construction phase will
be considered with other Department's CIP projects for FY 93/94.
The Department made a thorough analysis to determine the need. for an outside consultant to
prepare the necessary construction documents for this project. The Department evaluated this need
based on the following criteria:
1. Does existing staff have the required expertise or equipment?
The City has the staff expertise and equipment to prepare a portion of the necessary plans;
however, the workload of the Department's Landscape Architect and Engineering
Department's Engineers would need to be re-prioritized, and current projects in process by
staff would be deferred indefinitely. The Department's special projectgs and current CIP
work list includes: Otay Valley Regiona] Park project, Rohr Park Improvements (Phase II),
Memoria] Park Improvements (Phase II), Hilltop Park Improvements, McCandliss Memorial
GrovelPark (Phase II), and Playground Renovations at various sites. In addition, the
Landscape Architect provides extensive work and plan checking services for the development
projects, providing revenue, at full cost recovery, to the City's General Fund. These projects
are Salt Creek I, Salt Creek Ranch, the Bayfront Plan, EI Rancho del Rey, and Otay Ranch,
etc. The work necessary for the current project would require additional staffing if the Greg
Rogers Park project design is performed in-house.
2. Can the work project's short time frame be met by City Staff?
For a project as complex as the Greg Rogers Park Plan, considerable organization of the
various disciplines (Le., e]ectrical, civil engineering, architectural, and landscape) need close
coordination, which would be difficult for existing City staff to accomplish under the current
work load schedule. There is a short window of time available to get the project design and
construction complete, in order to minimize the impact to the users of the park, primarily the
Park View Little League.
3. Is it more cost effective to have the work completed by an outside provider?
The design work will take approximately twenty (20) weeks to complete by the consultant.
They projected 390 hours for landscape architectural design. This would necessitate an
average of twenty (20) hours a week for the Department's Landscape Architect to complete
the project in the same time frame. This work effort would seriously affect the current
schedule of projects in the Department.
p',_".93)
~
A cost comparison for the Landscape Architect consultant is $80.00 per hour. The
Department's Landscape Architect's hourly salary (including fulI cost recovery) is $61.00 per
hour. There would be non-General Fund savings if performed in-houSe; however, there
would be a negative impact on the revenue stream from outside resources if the work
program were re-directed to this project.
After analyzing the above criteria, it was the Department's conclusion that the Greg Rogers Park
Phase I plans should be performed by an outside consultant.
The Department solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 16, 1992, for interested
landscape architectural firms to provide the landscape architectural services necessary to prepare the
construction documents for the Phase I improvements. Notices were sent to over 50 firms in the San
Diego and Orange County area. The Department received 17 proposals by the October 16, 1992
deadline.
The selection procedure, as outlined in CYMe Sections 2.5.220 and .230 and Council Policy #102-05,
was utilized in reviewing the proposals. A selection committee comprised of representatives from
Engineering, Planning, Building and Housing and Parks and Recreation Departments evaluated the
seventeen (17) RFP utilizing a "qualification based selection process" to short-list the candidates to
five firms. The five finalists were invited to make an oral presentation to the selection committee.
A grading criteria based on qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project and design approach
and fee proposals was used to rank the firms. The final ranking of the finalists were:
FIRM FEE PROPOSAL
1. Van Dyke and Associates $52,700
2. DeLorenzo & Associates $39,700
3. Estrada Landscape, Inc. $68,071
4. KTU+A $53,550
5. T.\. Maloney $58,500
In comparing the top two firms which have provided consulting services for other City park projects,
Van Dyke and Associates maintained an excellent and cooperative working relationship with staff,
and stayed within the agreed contract price and project schedule. Delorenzo and Associates had
a less harmonious relationship with staff, was not as cost conscious and exceeded project time
schedules.
The fee proposal by Van Dyke and Associates is higher than the second ranked firm, however, the
Cities are authorized to select professional consultant services on the basis of demonstrated
competence and professional qualifications and not necessarily to the "low bidder." Fees are only
one of the considerations in the evaluation process. Van Dyke and Associates demonstrates these
qualities in the consultant services provided for the Marina View Park project. The Department was
extremely pleased with Van Dyke's cooperation, quality of work and the final product. A total of
$69,000 was paid to Van Dyke during 1991-92 for this contract.
IF_''.93j
.3
The original fee required for Van Dyke and Associates came to $52,700. After a preliminary .
negotiating meeting to define the scope of services required, it was decided to include, in Phase I,
design and construction document services required for improvements to the parking lot for the
baUfields. This additional design and construction service document increased consultant fee by
$8,800 for a total of $61,500. A parking lot was not considered when the cost for the first phase
construction documents were calculated. However, after further review by staff, it has become quite
evident that the parking lot should be included in this phase of construction documents. Staff is
thereby recommending expanding the original scope of service, which includes a parking lot, because
of the following reasons:
1. The Federal mandate to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public
parking facilities be accessible to the physically challenged. This new law was not in effect
when the CIP was developed.
2. The existing dirt parking lot has historically been a nuisance due to excessive dust during dry
months and mud during inclement weather. Severe erosion problems (ruts and holes) have
adversely affected this dirt lot.
3. A new lot will efficiently delineate specific areas where cars must park versus the random and
inefficient use of space which presently exists.
The revised fee of $61,500 does not include funds for reimbursables and any necessary reports to
complete the project. The consultant has requested:
1. $2,500 for reimbursable expenses i.e. reproductions, copying, additional blueprints, etc.
2. $2,000 for a title report to locate all easements, utilities on the project site.
The Department believes these are legitimate expenses that were not included in the original scope
of services and therefore recommend approval. The total cost for the consultant services will be
$66,000.
The Department is requesting an additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds. The
Department believes this proposal is appropriate and recommends approval. The total consultant
fee is $66,000, and an additional $4,000 is needed for parks and Recreation staff services. There is
$46,000 available in the FY 92193 CIP budget, with $42,000 earmarked for design work, and $4,000
for engineering staff services reimbursement.
(F'-~"."J
l'
FISCAL IMP ACT: An additional $28,000 from the unappropriated PAD funds will be required for
the desired landscape services and staff services reimbursement.
I.
Funding Required
A Consultant Services
B. Engineering Staff Cost
C. Park Recreation Staff Cost
TOTAL
n.
Funding Available
A Consultant Services
B. Engineering Staff Cost
TOTAL
m. Additional Funds Required
Attachments: Schematic Map
Agreement
(F'_".")
:f
$66,000
4,000
4.000
42,000
4.000
$74,000
$46,000
$28,000
MINUn:S OF A REGULAR MEE'IlNG OF l1iE C1Y COUNCL
OF l1iE C1Y OF 0iULA VISTA
Tuesday, March 2, 1993
4:07 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROil. CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Fox, Horton (anived at 4:32 p.m.), Moore, Rindone, and
Mayor Nader.
ABSENT:
None
ALSO PRESENT:
John D. Goss, City Manager; Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager; Bruce
Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Oerle.
2. PLEDGE OF AlJ.EGIANCE TO l1iE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUn:S: None submitted.
4. SPEOAL ORDERS OF l1iE DAY: Prnt-,..imiTlg 1993 as Senior Center Year in the City . The
proclamation declaring 1993 as Senior Center Year was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Rindone to Ema
Lenihan.
CONSENT 0.' l'NT'lAR
(Items pulled: Sa, Sb, 6, and 10)
BALANCE OF TIiE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the tat was waived,
p;wed. and approved unanimously.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Letter requesting funding of a traffic light on Otay Lakes Road at the Gotham Stteet comer -Marilee
Castenholz McKelvey, 1615 Gotham Street, Chula Vista, CA 91913. It is recommended that Ms. McKelvey
be advised by staff of the status of the proposed signal and that staff will recommend a signal be installed
at either Gotham or Elmhurst after a decision has been made on the transit center. Pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Tom Davis, 1657 Gotham Street, 91913, asked Council if they could separate the traffic signal issue at
Gotham and Otay Lakes Road from the transit center.
Mayor Nader asked staff to respond to Mr. Davis' concerns that there should not be a link between the traffic
signal and the transit center. If staff still believed that the two should be tied together, how long would it
talee?
Mr. Lippitt responded that staff still thinks there is a cOMection, although the college Board of Directors had
made the decision that the only place they want to look for the transit facility is near the new library. In
that case, we would still be putting the signal either at Gotham or Elmhurst; Gotham would be the preferred
location. Staff is not excited about this option because of costs. He felt it would probably talee anoth--
three to four months before all the information is in, and the Council and School Board could come te
consensus.
t.
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 3
MSUC (NaderlPox) to refer to staff to meet with the ....;gJohnrw. busiDas owners, and all interested parties.
When item comes back to CoUDdI in lhirty days, addrea c:onc:ema relating to bazarclous waste, if any; md
provide information concerning prior CoUDdI actions. .
Mayor Nader stated that any legal violation enforcement should not be delayed pending staff coming back
to Council; all legal violations should be dealt with at the time.
6. ORDINANCE 2541 AMENDING SEC'l10NS 12.24.020, 12.24.030, 12.24.040 AND 12.24.070
RElATING TO DEDICATION AND INSTAUATION Of PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (second readinl[ and
adootion) . Council requested that staff review Municipal Code Section 12.24.040 which provides the City
the ability to require street dedications and public improvements associated with building permits valued
at 510,000 or more. The review was to provide a recommendation for resetting the amount and
consideration of other facton. In addition, policy needs to be set regarding the limits of development on
private property before triggering the requirement to install or alter public improvements in the adjoining
right.of.way. Several years ago, Council accepted a staff report which included a recommendation that an
ordinance be brought back for adoption amending Municipal Code Section 12.24.070 to abolish the .
acceptance of surety bonds and accepting only cash bonds or liens as security for deferrals. It has been
discovered that the code change was neVer completed. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on
second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consmt Calmdar.
Mayor Nader stated that he had one basic concern to raise from 510.000 to 520.000 the level of the building
permit that would trigger any of these requirements. There was language in the ordinance and resolution
which would add a requirement in all permits of 520,000 or more for the property owner to waive their right
to protest the subsequent formation of an assessment district improvements. He had a problem with this
if the building permit was not related to an improvement which triggered the need for the public
improvements that the subsequent assessment district would be formed for.
ORDINANCE 2541 WItS OFFERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text wu waived.
Councilman Fox asked if, under this ordinance, garage convenions would fall into the category of additional
square footage? City Engineer Swanson responded yes. it would fall under additional square footage as well
as additional bedrooms.
Councilman Moore stated that during the last eight yean, we have not allowed garage convenions.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
M (Nader) to refer the matter back to staff to come back with an amendment which would delete the
requirement that a property owner waive his/her right to protest a subsequent an ..-ent district in
situations where the building permit did not authorize any additional clweIliDg space and where there wu
no nexus between between the improvement being made by the property 0WDeI' and the need for any
additional public facilities. Motion died for IacIt of a second.
7. ORDINANCE 2542 ADDING SECTIONS 19.04.107 AND 19.58.178 TO, AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 19.14.070, 19.42.040, 19.44.040 AND 19.46.040 OP, 1liE MUNlCPAL CODE TO ESTABUSH
DEPINI110NS. REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR 1liE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OP CONDmONAL
USE PERMITS POR HAZARDOUS WASTE PAaunES (second reaclin2 md adoption) . Punuant to State law
AB.2948 (Tanner, 1986), the City is required to adopt local provisions to implement the approved County
of San Diego Hazardous Waste Management Plan (COHWMP). The proposed amendments establish the
necessary provisions for the management of hazardous waste and the siting and permitting of hazardous
waste facilities within the City, consistent with the COHWMP and State law. Staff recommends Council
place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning)
7
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 5
Councilman Fox stated he had problems in changing the rules of the RFP after people have gone through
the process of putting a proposal together and then we change it and award it to someone who wasn't the
lowest bidder. He wanted to know what liabilities or problems we might encounter as a result of the change
of the rules. City Attorney Boogaard responded that it has been the practice in all cities to distinguish
between a Request for Proposal and the public works bidding process. In a RFP, you are asking for expertise
and qualifications. You are basically saying to the industry this is what we think we need, but give us your
proposal. After that proposal is submitted, they are basically sending in resumes of their qualifications and
an idea of how to achieve what we think we need. It is completely within the understanding of all parties
participating in the process that the team can be subjected to further negotiations with the city saying we
need to modify this to cover these other things. This is different from the public bidding process where we
tightly draw the bid specifications. This is not subject to further negotiations.
Councilman Fox stated that it seemed like there were things which came up after the proposal was made
which seemed was material to the request -- things like reimbursable expenses for copying, doing a title
report to find any easements, etc. They should have been part of the proposal.
Councilwoman Horton asked staff how they came up with the five people on the list. Assistant Parks and
Recreation Director, Jerry Foncerrada, responded that we had a committee of representatives from Building
and Housing, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments who short-listed the seventeen
candidates down to five. The five were invited in to make a presentation and to sell the committee as to
which one would be the best one to work with. Based on the rating criteria they had, that is how the
ranking came out with the five firms.
Councilwoman Horton stated she had called several different landscape architectural firms because she had
some questions regarding the contract with Van Dyke and other things. Part of the criteria was based I
qualifications, presentation, knowledge of the project, design approach, and fee proposals. The ~umber tw..
firm came in as the lowest bidder, but because there are some other concerns that are expressed in the staff
report, staff decided the number one firm should be chosen based on concerns over and above the price.
Mr. Valenzuela stated that was correct, but they did take into consideration past performance by both of the
potential consultants, and they took into consideration how the price had escalated in one given project
beyond what staff felt was reasonable.
Councilwoman Horton stated that she was not arguing this point. She investigated this firm also and would
agree with staff and not hire them. However, in talking to one of the firms, a firm in which she placed in
high regard, they mentioned they had bid on this project. She found out his bid was $45,700. This was
a landscape architectural firm who had an excellent reputation in the industry and who has won several
awards in our city for past projects such as Discovery, Sunridge, and Scoby Parks. Based on staff's criteria,
we were picking a firm at $52,700 when we have a reputable firm that we could have hired at $45,700.
She wondered how many other firms were in the same situation. Mr. Valenzuela responded that he could
provide Council with the criteria that was used to select the consultants for the short list. He was not aware
of the consultants who did not make the short list. Last year, the Mini.Brooks Act which is a state law
requires cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to select landscape architects or design consultants based
upon skill, e~ertise, history, proven track records, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated that everything he named, this company has. In the industry, it is rated very
high. You knew when you picked the number two firm at $39,700 that they already had this reputation
within the city. So they shouldn't have even been on the list.
Mayor Nader asked if the Parks 8: Recreation Director was on the Selection Committee. He responded that
he was not.
g
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 7
14. RESOLlTnON 17011 SUPPOIlTING nm SAN DIEGO ASSOCATION OF GOVERNMENTS
(SANDAG) IN nm SUBMl1TAL OF AN APPUCATION POll GRANT PUNDS UNDl!Ilnm PROPOSmON 116
QJ;AN AIR AND 11tANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENr 1Cf, B1CYClB PROGRAM - The Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement Act (CA TIA) maltes available $20 million state-wide to fluid a five-year program
of competitive grants to local agencies for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects which improve
safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. On 11120/92, SANDAG submitted an application for
Proposition 116 Bicycle Funds totalling $750,000 for a portion of the Bay Route Bikeway known as the
Sweetwater River crossing. The CA TIA requires that a local public agency adopt a resolution approving the
submittal. In accordance with said requirements, SANDAG has requested that the City support the subject
application. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
15,A, RESOLlTnON 17012 REVISING TFNl'AllVEMAP CONDmONOFAPPIlOVALEOF OiULAVlSTA
TRACT 92~ AND CONDmON OF APPROVAL 1.1 OF 0iULA VISTA TRACT ~1 (RESOunlON 16900) -
On 11/11/92, by Resolution 16900, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Maps for Tracts 92.05 and
93.01, Rancho del Rey Commercial Center west and east, respectively. The final maps and associated
agreements for both subdivisions are now before Council for approval. Staff recommends CouncD continue
the item to 3/9/93. (Director of Public Works)
B. RESOLlTnON 17013 APPROVING nm PINAL MAP AND SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMEm' AND AIm-lORIZlNG nm MAYOR TO SIGNnm MAP AND EXEClTI'E SAID AGREEMENt" POR
TRACT 92~, RANCliO DEL REY COMMl!llCAL CI!Nl1!Il WEST
C. RESOLlTnON 17014 APPROVING nm PINAL MAP AND SUBDMSION 1MPR0VEMENr
AGREEMEm' AND AlmiORIZlNG nm MAYOR TO SIGN nm MAP AND EXEClTI'E SAID AGREEMEm' POR
TRACT ~1, RANCliO DEL REY COMMl!llCAL CI!Nl1!Il EAST
D. RESOLlTnON 17015 APPROVING Sl.lPPlJ!:MENTAL SUBDMSlON IMPROVEMENI' AGREEMENTS
TO SATISFY CONDmONS OF APPROVAL M. N, 0 AND P OF TRACT ~ AND CONDmONS OF
APPROVAL S, T, U AND V OF TRACT ~1 AND AIm-lORIZlNG nm MAYOR TO EXEClTI'E SAME
E. RESOLlTnON 17016 AIm-lORIZlNG nm MAYOR TO EXEClTI'E DEEDS QtJI1'ClAlMING ANY
1TnE INTERF.5T IN PROPERnES TO BE OWNED BY nm 0lliER PARnES SIGNING nm MAPs AFII!Il
RECORDATION OF SAID MAPS
16. RESOLlTnON 17017 AIm-lORIZlNGTEMPORARYa.osuREATMOSSSTREETCROSSlNGPOR
nm METROPOUTAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (MTDB) SOlmi IJNE GRADE CROSSlNG
IMPROVEMENT. The MTDB has issued a change order to add the Moss Street crossing to the .South Line
Grade Crossing Improvement Project, LRT-299." National Projects, Inc. has requested two temporary
weekend closures to complete the necessary work with minimal delays to motorists. Staff recommends
approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
17. RESOLlTnON 17018 APPROVING A SEWER SERVICE AND STORM DRAIN CiARGE REFUND
POR nm RANCliO BONITA MOBILE HOME PARIC POR FISCAL YEAR. (PY) 1991-92; AND APPIlOPRIATlNG
AN ADDmONAL $16,633.10 INTO FUND 223, nm MONTGOMI!IlY SEWI!Il SERVICE REVENUE FUND AND
$5,810.65 INTO FUND 227, nm STORM DRAIN REVENUE FUND - In FY 1991.92, the Rancho Bonita
Mobile Home Park, located at 600 Anita Street, was incorrectly billed for sewer service and storm drain
charges on the tax bills for parcels 622.041-19-00 and 622.091.24-00. They paid the full amounts and are
r
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 9
Councilman Moore stated he was the one who made the motion to consider the name change. When
looking at this area, he looked at one address, 1925 Otay Lakes Road, rather than 196 homes. He felt the
name change would help those coming to the Olympic Training Center and to the new hospital. If the name
was to be changed, it should be done early before these organizations spent a lot of money on their
brochW'es and advertising. He felt if Council wanted to approve the name change, then the effective date
could be extended whereby the post office would accept either address until January 1, 1995.
Councilman Rindone felt the name should be changed to East L Street all the way. If we are going to be
one city, then we should make this East L. Then there would be continuity throughout the city.
MS (Rindone/Hotton) to return this to staff to look at ......;", lhe entire .section "I." Street.
SlJIl5ll111re ManON: MS (Moore/Nader) to file lhe item.
Councilwoman Horton stated that if we want to make a change, it should be down now. She would not vote
for the substitute motion.
Mayor Nader stated that no one outside the government has come to state there was a problem. If and
when a time should come when that happened, th~n he supported getting more information.
SlJIl5ll111re MOTION WAS APPROVED 3-2 (Rindone and Horton opposed).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. Jean Weissman, 296 Dolphin Cove, Del Mar, 92014, representing the Local Government Commission.
This was a membership organization which included about 400 local governments and elected officials in
California. Currently, they are acting as a consultant to the San Diego Air Quality Control District. Their
project is to develop a program to control indirect sources of air pollution in San Diego County. Out of this
may come a rule that will affect Chula Vista along with the other cities. Her purpose was to alert the
Council that this is coming and to ask for Council's active participation in the planning process. This project
is mandated by the California Clean Air Act which authorizes local air control districts to require sources
of pollution to obtain air quality permits. She stated that they did not want to impose a solution upon the
cities in this county without their input. She hoped the Council would attend the four regional workshops
which will be held in San Diego County within the next several months. Council will be receiving a letter
with the times and places.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
AC'IlON ITEMS
20. RESOLtmON 17020 CONCEP1UAlLY APPROVING 1liE PUNDlNG NOT TO EXCEED $700,000
TO SOtmiBAY COMMUNl1Y SERVICES FOR ACQmsmON AND PIRSr-YEAR OPERATION cosrs OF A
POURTEEN UNIT APARTMENT BUIlDING AT 31 POUR11i AVENUE TO BE USED AS A SHORT 1EtM
HOUSING PACLITY - South Bay Community Services (SBCS) is interested in acquiring a 14-unit apartment
complex to develop a short-term housing facility to serve homeless families in the South Bay. The site is
adjacent to the transitional housing project which will enable both projects to be managed together. It
also close to National City, which has been contacted to financially participate in the project. SBCS..
I~
MINUTES
March 2,1993
Page 11
Councilman Moore asked if that meant they will have to lay someone off if we collect the next two hundred
units under our jurisdiction? Mr. Salomone responded that that will not happen. This is the advantage of
this. As it grows, their existing staff keeps their fee.
Councilman Fox asked if the administrative fee of 8.2 percent of the monthly subsidies was when it reached
200. Then what would be the fee before it reached 2oo? Housing Coordinator, Juan Arroyo, responded that
any new certificate which the city acquired over time, everyone can charge 8.2 percent of the monthly rent.
This could be used to cover administrative cost. That fee becomes available to the City upon any new
certificate.
Councilman Fox stated that if the County was administering the certificates until the City reached the 200
point, who would get the 8.2 percent? Councilman Moore responded that they use the 8.2%. When we say
we are going to take over, then they cease and we step in.
Councilman Fox asked what other specific duties will the Commission have other than the administrative
ones listed in the staff report. Mr. Salomone responded that the grievance hearings will be conduc,ted by
staff; the Council or Commission will not have to get involved in those. The Housing Authority Committee
would be the last court of decision on appeals.
Councilman Moore asked how many cities had housing authorities where the elected officials were the
Authority? Mr. Arroyo stated that most cities do not have Housing Authorities. Only Carlsbad, Oceanside,
and National City have their own Authority whereby the Council is the Authority.
Mr. Salomone stated that the Authority will not have the workload that the Redevelopment Agency does.
The Authority would be involved in grant applications, approving contracts with HUD for administration of
the housing certificates, bond issues, etc.
Councilwoman Horton stated she was in support of the staft's recommendation. She felt that as a start up
situation this was the best route to take to get this program going. She was ~ad to see Chula Vista forming
its own Housing Authority. However, she would like to have staff come back with a Vision, Mission
Statement, and specific Goals. Also important would be to have staff come back on a regular basis, even
monthly, with a report letting Council know what has been transpiring - for example, what has staff been
.doing, what grants have been applied for, what type of funding has staff been able to get. .
Councilman Rindone asked if the County will still have jurisdiction in Chula Vista for the previous housing
units under them which would result in overlapping jurisdictions. Mr. Salomone srated this was correct.
Councilman Rindone asked if staff saw any problems with that? Mr. Salomone stated there could be
resultant confusion among the tenants. However, this is the format which has been followed by many cities
throughout the United States and is a typical process as a city grows away from the County jurisdiction on
housing. We will be creating a new constituency of housing tenants in the City who will come to us for all
kinds of housing needs. The County people who are on the County Section 8 program have been certified,
have been qualified, and assigned to a case worker at the County. They have a strong communication with
that person. It is not likely that those people who are on that program will come to the City. . There will
be overlapping jurisdictions; there are a thousand Section 8 units in the City that are subsidized under the
County Housing Authority. .
Councilman Rindone requested that staff, if this is approved, conract other cities to see the extent of what
that problem would be. If it is a problem, how have they addressed it. He also asked, on a regional basis,
ifwe would be duplicating fixed costs? Is this a concern overaJ\? There is a school of thought that the best
delivery system on a regional basis might ultimately be more cost effective. He would want to know the net
impact on that and if it has been looked at. Mr. Salomone responded that if you look at Section 8
administration which is the HUD program, there are regional economies. One of the predominate reasons
for becoming an Housing Authority is to give us the chance to go after the money which is offered only to
Housing Authorities and to create projects and programs loca/ly that are afforded by the federal government
and other agencies only to Housing Authorities.
/)
MINUTES
March 2, 1993
Page 13
Mr. Goss asked staff if there was any major workload implications or limitations based on what was being
requested by the motion? Mr. Salomone stated he did not. The Authority will be established tonight. The
other activities such as seeking funds and applying for grants are things we would normally due and assume
as part of our workload. Mr. Goss stated the additional workload would be the monthly report which should
probably be a rather simple routine thing to do. '
Mayor Nader stated that although it will be two years before we accumulate the number of Section 8
subsidies that we would take those over, the situation has been that the City has on staff a full.time Housing
Coordinator and the creation of the Housing Authority puts some new tools in his arsenal to do his existing
job. The way he interprets the motion on the floor is a request from the Council, which constitutes itself
as the Housing Authority for the City, for at least a monthly report from existing staff on how it is going
about planning to make use of that new tool.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEMS PULLED FROM 11iE CONSENT CALENDAR
(NOTE: Pulled from the Consent Calendar were items number Sa, 5b, and 10. Although they were
discussed at this point, the minutes are transcribed to reflect the published agenda order).
01liER. BUSINESS
22. 01Y MANAGEROS REPORTrs)
Mr. Goss stated that the Parks and Recreation Department had received two achievement awards. One Vi?
an achievement award for the design of the Norman Park Senior Center. It has now been recognized by th
California Park and Recreation Society District Twelve. The other was an award for innovation programming
for Project Care which is a new partnership program for senior citizens and disabled living alone in Chula
Vista who need the assistance of community partners. '
23. MAYOROS REPORTCS)
Mayor Nader stated that while he was in Irapuato, our sister city, he had a chance to meet with the new
Mayor to catch up on activities involving our sister city exchange program, specifically our summer student
social work exchange funded by the Kellogg Grant. He had an opportunity to be interviewed by local radio
and to express his opinion that the announced rejection of Twinports by the Federal Government in Mexico
was an example of how we can work together on border environmental issues.
Mayor Nader will be attending the National League of Cities meeting in Washington D.C. and will be absent
on March 9th.
The Council secretary polled the Council for potential meeting dates and times to interview Commission
applicants those being Growth Management and Montgomery Planning. Date and time selected was
Monday, March 22 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room.
24. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Counc:ilman Moore stated he had a special meeting today regarding a different way to attack graffiti at no
cost to the city except for their staffs time. He will be asking for a letter to go out to the major companies
such as the City of Chula Vista and National City, utility companies, etc. to ask them to support the program.
A copy will be put on each of their desks.
/:(
GREG ROGERS PARK
RANKING BY INDEPENDENT RATER
1. Heimburger-Hirsch
2. Nowell-Thompson
3. BSI
4. Schmidt
5. Estrada
6. KTU + A
7. DeLorenzo
8. Dike
9. Van Dyke
10. Wiley
11. Garbini
12. Tatsumi
13. Maloney
14. Teshima
15. Marum
16. Stone-Fisher
17. ONA
POINTS
@
88
88
84
80
80
76
71
61
60
59
58
49
49
47
45
38
/ :P ,
~
$33,400
$32,400
~ $107,000---
$47,430
$68,071
$53,500
$39,700
$39,000
$41,500-$59,500
$29,600
$61,025
$29,800
$69,724
$57,600
$48,070
$58,500
$45,700
'.
ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
',' .
\. SoUce Is hereby gtven that the City ofChula Vista w1lJ receive at the office of the Director of Parks and
{ .~eaUon. 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. Cal1fomla. proposals to prov1de landscape arch1tectural
services for speclftcaUons. working drawings and construction bid documents ll'--aJy for Oreg
Rogers Master Plan In the City of Chula Vista. Proposals must be received by 5:00 n.m.. October 16.
~.
Submission of a proposal w1lJ not consUtute a bid or continuing offer. The party submitting a proposal
will not be contractually responsible to the City and may withdraw the proposal at any time without
obllgaUon. The City re&eJVeS the right to reject any and all proposals or enter sn to an agreement with
the party submitting the proposal which. In the oplnlon and sole dlscreUon of the City. w1lJ best serve
the publlc snterest. Such evaluaUon w1lJ Include. but not be llmlted to. elCpUlence. business
reputaUon. overall quallflcaUons. the proposal submitted. and other lnformaUon obta1ned through
background InvesUgatlon of proposers. It Is understood that the dty wlll not compenaate parties for
lubmlsslon of letters.
1. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Profect DescrlDUon
Oreg Rogers Park Is a 47 acre community park that serves the southern portion of the
City of Chula Vista. It was opened September 11. 1962 and was the first park developed
In Chula Vista as a Joint-use facUlty between the dty and the school district. The park
has various uses and faclllUes that Include. llttle league nelds. Boys and Olrls Club
facilities. piCnic areas, playground and a general maintenance area.
A Master Plan was developed by Olllesple-Delorenzo In 1991 and approved by Council.
The Master Plan proposed a two-phase development project. however. due to funding. the
Master Plan will be developed over a 5-year period. Funding Is available In FY 92-93 to
prepare construction documents. speclilcaUons and bid documents for Phase I
construction In FY 93-94. The revised five year construcUon phasing schedule Is as
follows:
83.84 AMOUNT
Relocate power line. . 50.000
a.-ding 80.000
IJUllty .tub-outa 40.000
Bueb.n fleld. (4) and acceuorlea 52.730
Slope planting 39.830
Turf plantInC and In1pUon/ballllelda . 194.050
Contingency (15%). MoblllzaUon (5%) 82.000
TOTAL . 558.880
""hi
\
WI'C F:~~\aS.12
Page 1
/}I
". .~".~
Noe5 AMOUNT
fWtc1ng lot Improvement/ba11aeld . 111.834
Removal of park .-ldence/exlatlng playground 10.000
Orand.land Matlng/athletlc complex 187.1500
Contingency (15%). Moblllzatlon (5%) 82.000
TOTAL . .71.SS4
.5ot18 AMOUNT
Demo of exlatlng _troom. exlatlng parIdng lot. _0': '''''1 buUclIng . 12.000
Replacement of aocI. In1gatlon demo areu 10.800
New re.troom 120.000
New conceaalon .tend 135.000
New malntenance facWty 150.000
New park1ng lot 114.000
ConUngency (15%). MoblUzaUon 15%) 112.000
TOTAL . 5153.800
118.117 AMOUNT
P1enle ohelters 120 X 40) . 45.1500
P1enle ohelters (3) (15 x 20) 106.500
CreaUve playground 75.000
Concrete picnic tables 14.400
Sheller plenle tablet 4.900
Park aoceaaorlea. barbecue grtUs. trash receptacle. benches. 'cIrInIc1ng Iounlaln. 73.680
barbecue pita. ent1y monument
UPV-de of park ln1gauon -r.tem:
School groundo 66.870
Park turf 163.170
Park .Iopes 68.460
Addltlonal treea 79.500
ConUngency (15%). Moblllzatlon (5%) 140.000
TOTAL . 788.050
r: "-\porDnc\U.t2
Page 2
/6'
"
'i
87... AIIOVNT
Concrete walkway. . . 16USO
Decompoae cranJte trail 8.048
Secw1ty lIghtlni throughout park 44.000
Puldn& Iota 1IChtlni 24.000
8alIAeJd 1IChUng 180.000
Contingency (15%). MobWzallon (5%) 14.000
TOTAL 1 ao2.SIl8
I
ORAND TOTAL
12.'754.'782 ~
B. Reoulrements
The selected landscape architect will be required to perform the following tasks. in
accordance wtth City of Chula Vista standards and the latest Federal mandate of the
Americans wtth DlsabUlties Act lADA).
1. Prepare construction drawtngs for Phase I construction including but not llmlted
to:
a. Speclflcations for proposed construction and planning w11l Include
standards for materials and tnstallation and methods of installation.
b. Final Cost Estimates which will be ltem1zed and be based on final worldng
draWings.
c. Plans must be prepared on "0" s~eet (2' x 3') size mylar with standard City
border. Mylars are ava1lable in the Publlc Works Department.
d. Drawtngs shall include electrical. demolltion. site. gradlng. landscaping.
structural. clearing and grubbing. 1n1gation. and as-bu1lts.
2. Fulfill requirements for constn.JcUon bid documents. using City's format with
Input from City staff.
S. Provide all surveying. lfneeded. for preparation of plans and constn.Jction of the
project. Surveying shall be done by a profesSional engineer or llcensed land
surveyor.
4. Assist CIty in the preparation and taking of constn.Jction bIds.
5. Assist CIty in admlnlsterlng construction project by making site visits on an as-
needed basis.
I
WI'C r: _"",,,,",,\13.82
Page S
t~
-
"
6. Partlclpate In conferences with City stafT, Park View LIttle League for the
development of drawings and plans.
II'
C.
PrOtlosal Format
Proposals (four copies) shall contaJn the follOWIng:
1. ArchJtect.Englneer fonns 254 and 255.
2. A negoUable time schedule for completion of Phase J drawings and plans.
3. The finn's approach to completing t~ed herein. with special emphasis
placed on creativity. low maJntenan~ to e:xtemalSWTOund1ngS. vandal
resistance. and cost effecttveness.
4. Names and qual1flcatlons of consultant team who w1Jl be d1rect1y Involved In the
project.
5. A cost estimate for each consultant used for the service to be penormed.
All proposals will be reviewed. screened. and evaluated by a Selection Committee. nus
committee will select five candidates It considers most qual1fled to be lnt.eMewed. These
candidates must submlt three samples of similar work dealing with park redesign prior
to the Interview.
D. Selection Criteria
1. The following criteria shall be used In selecting the firm ultimately chosen for this
proj ect:
2. QualJfications of the specific Indlv1duals who WIll work on the project.
3. Demonstrated record of success by the consultant on work previously performed
for the City and/or other munJclpalltles or enterprises.
4. Ability to provide General Uablllty Insurance and Profe,sslonal Uablllty Insurance
(Errors and Omlsslons).
Based on the interview and information submltted, the commlttee will make a flnal
selection. The chosen finn shall enter Into flnal negotiations with the Director of Parks
and Recreations or h1s representative. Both partles shall define the exact conditions of
the contract scope, work plan, schedule, fees. and methods of payment. After completion
of these negotiations. a City of Chula VISta standard two-party contract w1Jl be presented
to the city council for approval.
E. Pre-Protlosal Contact
Consultants are encouraged to contact Martin SchmJdt, Landscape Arch1tect at (619)
691-5071 regarding cJarUlcatlon of th1s request for proposals or add1UonallnformaUon.
WPC F:~\porbrwI:\A12
Page 4
1'7
ATTACHMENT D
'GREG ROGERS PARK
INTERVIEW FORM
f
I
!
To:
l/.tmJiftri., Grollp)
O...ner:
Interview Score Sheet
ISSL'E Points A....rded Possible Points
1. Similar project experience 10
2. Discussion of the firm's capacit)' to perform the work. 10
3. A discussion ofthe firm's understanding of the project needs. 20
4. Discussion of the methods the firm proposes to use in ,
pro\'iding the required sen'ices. I 10
5. A discussion of consultants that ma)' be working ...ith
the firm on the project. I 10
6. Discussion of how the firm will handle the planning. I
design. and construction phases of the project. Discuss
design approach. construction cost controls. and involvement 30
in the design and implemeiltation phases ofthe work.
7. Discussion of time schedule the firm proposes to cotnplete I
the necessary preliminary work. as well as a time schedule 10
for the entire project.
Notes:
TOTAL 100
Intel'\'iewer: Firm:
as
1('
~,~
=-~--:
",-- ~~
~:-~~
I tern No. ;J.t) b
mY OF
D-IUA VISTA
MEMORANDUM
July 22, 1993
TO
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM
Bob Fox, Council member
SUBJECT
Council Comments for the July 27, 1993 Meeting
I am requesting reconsideration of three requests for reclassification which were frozen at the
7/13/93 City Council meeting. These requests were to reclass:
I. A Senior Accounting Assistant to Collection Supervisor in the Finance Department.
2. An Administrative Analyst II to a Senior Management Analyst in the Management and
Information Services Department.
3. An Associate Planner to Senior Planner in the Planning Department.
Attached are pages 10-12 of the City Manager's report from the 7/13/93 Council meeting, a
portion of the draft minutes from the 7/13/93 meeting which address this issue along with
Councilman Rindone's question and staff's response to reclassification request #3 above.
Attachments: City Manager's report pages 10-12 dated 7/13/93
Councilman Rindone's question and staff's response
7/13/93 draft minutes showing the action taken on these requests (Pg. 7)
B:\(SM)\RECLASS.FOX
.2.()b~1 ~{Jb- /(J
Item 16
Meeting Date 07/13/93
perform tree trimming service satisfactorily, utilizing probation workers and
others successfully over the past year. Since that process is successfu~, the
department plans to continue using that assistance with the result that salary
savings from this frozen position can be utilized to counteract the reduction in
revenue from the State. There is also a reduction of $20,000 in construction
materials which is justified based on past expenditure history, plus some
miscellaneous account cuts amounting to $3,718.
Non-Deoartmental
It is proposed that $10,100 in cuts be taken from the Non-Departmental b~dget.
The City maintains a contingency account for hazardous waste studies of $10,000.
It is recommended to reduce this contingency account by 50%, to a to~al of
$5,000. To date, none of these funds have been used. It is also recommended to
reduce the Council contingency account from $15,000 to $10,000, a cut of $5,000.
This account also has only been used on a very limited basis over the last
several years. A total of $100 in memberships is recommended to be cut,:which
can be paid for by the individual out of professional enrichment funds. '
HIRING FREEZE
At the June 22, 1993 Counc i 1 meet i ng, Counc il imp lemented a h ir i ng freeze for a 11
positions exclusive of those directly related to public safety, such as police
officers and fire fighters. At that time, the State cut was not specifically
known and this action was proposed as an interim measure in preparation for the
final State cut information. Now that the State cut is known and we have
recommended expenditure cuts and additional revenues to meet the net loss in
revenue from the State of $540,000, it is recommended that the hiring freeze be
eliminated. There are many vacant positions throughout the City which are
critical to maintaining the current. service levels being provided to our
citizens. It is recommended that all vacant positions not previously identified
as those to be frozen or eliminated from the budget be filled at this time.
RECLASSIFICATIONS
Included as part of the FY 1993-94 proposed budget presented for Council adoption
on June IS, 1993 were three position reclassifications recommended for your
approval. During budget deliberations, Council directed that all position
reclassifications be eliminated for FY 1993-94. It is requested that Council
reconsider the three reclassifications submitted.
The first reclassification recommended was in the Finance Department,
reclassif in a enior Accountin Assistant to ollection u ervisor at a net
increased cost of 7,653. .This position's duties were studied by the Personnel
Department and recommended to be reclassified to the higher level. The basis for
this recommendation is that the actual duties being performed by this position
10
./ L~/.2PD -)...
Item 16
Meeting Date 07/13/93
far exceed the knowledge, skills and abilities required of a Senior Accounting
Assistant. If this position continues to work at duties which are beyond its
current classification, the City will be in violation of Civil Service rules and
we would be forced to change the duties of the pOSition so that all duties fall
within the lower classification realm of responsibility, thereby minimizing its
effectiveness. The new duties are required to effectively implement the Revenue
and Recovery Division's new comprehensive collections program and the new ~B 408
(parking violation decriminalization) program. These new programs require a
significantly higher level of expertise, responsibility and discretion, as well
as supervision of employees, volunteers and interns. The need for a Collections
Supervisor is strong and could be supported as an entirely new position.
However, greater efforts at automating systems, in conjunction with the use of
volunteers to do low level tasks make it reasonable to experiment with meeting
new program needs by upgrading an existing position. This position, if allowed
to perform at the higher level and be appropriately compensated, will create
additional revenue of approximately $131,000 in FY 1993-94, which has been
included in the actual revenue support for the operating budget. Should this
reclass not be approved, staff would be required to relook at the revenue and
likely would have to reduce the amount of revenue which could be generated by
this position by up to one-half. Also, additional funds would likely need to be
appropriated for the AS 408 program. It is recommended that the Council
reconsider this reclassification in light of the actual duties being performed
which exceed the current position classification, and the additional revenue
which can be gained by this increase.
The second reclassification requested is in the Management and Information
Services Department, the Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation Division, from
an Administrative Analvst II to a Senior Manaaement Analvst at a total cost of
$4,434. This reclass was requested to be implemented effective January I, 1994
and would therefore only be in effect for the last six months of the fiscal year.
This position was studied by the Personnel Department and the resulting
recommendation of an increase to Senior Management Analyst was as a result of
that personnel reclassification study. In the study, it was identified that the
current Administrative Analyst II is presently performing duties and skills which
far exceed the position classification of Administrative Analyst II. These
current duties have significant impacts on City revenue and include
responsibility for (1) updatin9 the City's full cost recovery factors (FCRs),
including the Citywide factor and individual department/division factors, and
developing special FCRs for specific programs such as the Federal Aid Urban; (2)
analyzing the direct and indirect cost allocations for City services and
preparing updates to the Master Fee Schedule; and (3) overseeing the Citywide
project accounting system, including the training of departmental staff and
monitoring reimbursements. In addition, the current incumbent has primary
responsibility for assisting departments in assessing the costs/benefits
associated with in-house versus contract decisions. The circumstances of this
position also include the ability to fully access a career ladder within a
series. As Council has agreed to in the past, it was recommended that the
movement from Administrative Analyst I through Senior Management Analyst also be
considered as a career ladder, and that individuals may move from the I level to
ll~
~ 21>.,3
Item 16
Meeting Date 07/13/93
the Senior level based on needs and performance. As such, it is recommended that
Council reconsider the reclassification of Administrative Analyst II to Senior
Management Analyst. As previously noted, the actual reclassification would not
take effect until January, 1994. However, approval of the reclassification is
needed at this time to enable the incumbent to continue work on the projects
noted above during the interim period.
The final reclassification requested was in the Planning Department, from
ssociate Planner to enior Planner, which would become the Design Review
Coordinator at a total cost of 4,030. It has been the department's desire to
implement an official Design Review Coordinator with the requirement of an
architect's license, and which would clearly be able to oversee the design review
process, among other duties. The benefit of this would allow for improved
streamlining and increasing the quality of staff support that can be provided to
the Design Review Committee. Currently the department has been filling this need
by using a consultant, who is a licensed architect, to coordinate all design
rev iew. As you may remember, there was concern expressed by many outs i de
architects that the planners providing support to the Design Review Committee had
very limited, or no, architectural background. The implementation of this
reclass was meant to meet that concern, and those expressed by the Council, in
order to expedite the processing of projects before the City, as well as
providing a better interface with the public. From the FY 1992-93 to the FY
1993-94 budget, staff was able to eliminate $5,000 from Planning and Community
Development for architectural consultant services since we had planned to have
an in-house architect. In addition, this temporary architect has saved the City
consulting costs by providing Community Development advice on dealing with the
parking structure defects at Park Plaza at the Village. Should the Council not
approve reconsideration of this reclassification to Senior Planner, the
department will not be able to provide the architectural support to the Design
Review Committee which was previously requested. Also anticipated with this
reclass was a reduction in overtime costs to attend evening meetings, such as
DRC. The Senior Planner does not receive overtime, while an Assistant Planner
must be compensated for attendance at meet ings. It is therefore recommended that
the Council reconsider this reclass from Associate Planner to Senior Planner.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approval of the recommended budget reductions will adopt a revised budget for
1993-94 of $54,418,775.
JDG:mab
cuts
1~ -,oJ.2/) b ' i
Councilmember Rindone's question and staff's response for the 7/13/93 meeting
regarding reclassifying Associate Planner to Senior Planner.
8. IF THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SENIOR PLANNER DOES NOT TAKE PLACE, HOW
COULD THE ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE BE
PROVIDED?
As part of the Permit Streamlining Program, there was considerable attention
placed on the Design Review Program. There were specific criticisms that the
standards imposed in the program were subjective, and at times appeared to be
arbitrary. There were also concerns that there was inadequate oversight of the
programs by "senior level" staff.
In response to these concerns, in December 1992, we appointed Patrick Crowley,
who was working in the Planning Department as a temporary senior planner, to take
over as design review coordinator. Mr. Crowley is a licensed architect with
considerable experience in both planning and architecture. In evaluating Mr.
Crowley's performance in this position, we feel that it has had a 'positive
impact, both from the standpoint of having an architect who is able to
communicate clearly with other design professionals regarding design concepts,
and also has the depth of experience to be able to offer workable options to
applicants.
If the position were not filled at this level on a permanent basis, we would
refill the position with an existing Associate Planner, under the supervision of
the Principal Planner in the Development Planning Division.
~
~b~
Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 4
12. RESOLUTION 17161 ACCEPTINGBIDSANDAWARDINGCONTRACfFORTIiECONS1RUCTION
OF ORANGE AVENUE AND FOURTII AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (ST-IS1) . On 6/23/93, sealed bids
were received for the "Orange Avenue and Fourth Avenue Street Improvements" (ST.151). The work to be
done consists of the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, pavement widening, decorated and
landscaped medians, and traffic safety improvements. The low bidder was Granite ConstrUction Company
in the amount of $333,968. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
13. RESOLUTION 17162 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIiE SAN DIEGO TRANSIT
CORPORATION (SDTC) AND TIiE 01Y FOR UNIFIED TELEPHONE INFORMATION SYSTEM . On 6/19/80,
the South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT) entered into an agreement with San Diego Transit
Corporation (SDTC) for regional transit information service. The service provides Chula Vista Transit (CVT)
riders with information on CVT schedules and routes, and on other fIxed route transit systems in San Diego
County including San Diego Transit and the Trolley. Since SCOOT was dissolved on 7/1/93, the agreement
for the service for the current fIscal year will be between the City and SDTC. The agreement continues CVT
participation in the regional service for Fiscal Year (FY) 1993/94 at a cost of $22,766, a 7.6% increase over
the FY 1992/93 cost of $21,146. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
14. REPORT PROPOSED DEBT SETIU:.MF.NT BElWEEN OGDEN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ENERGY SERVICES AND BALDWIN VISTA ASSoaATES REGARDING TIiE OTAY RANCH . Over the past
few months, Baldwin has fallen short in meeting its contracrual obligation to Ogden Environmental as to
payments due. Negotiations have been ongoing over the last thirty days to arrive at an acceptable payment
schedule to eliminate the debt. A tentative agreement has been reached. The purpose of the report was to
request Council authorization, since the City was a party to the three party agreement, to have City staff
implement the agreement. It was recommended that Council authorize staff to execute a payment agreement
with Baldwin Vista and Ogden Environmental to address the Otay Ranch debt. (Deputy City Manager
Kremp!) Pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Continued to the 7/20/93 meeting.
15. REPORT UPDATE ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF AB 408
(DECRJMINAUZATION OF PARKING VIOLATIONS) . AB 408 became effective 7/1/93. The report describes
the steps taken to comply with AB 408 provisions and the specifIc impacts on the City's parking citation
program. ITEM HAS BEEN PUllED AT STAFFS REQUEST AND SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL AS AN
INFORMATION ITEM. (Director of Finance)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBUC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
16. PUBUC HEARING AMENDING TIiE 1993/94 BUDGET TO ACCOUNT FOR REVENUE
REDUCTIONS FROM TIiE STATE OF CAUFORNIA - On 6/15/93, Council adopted the 1993/94 operating
budget with the understanding that the budget would be revisited after the State adopted its budget and
the impact of the State revenue cuts on the City were known. Staff recommends adoption of the revised
budget. (Administration)
RESOLUTION 17163 AMENDING TIiE 1993/94 BUDGET TO ACCOUNT FOR REVENUE
REDUCTIONS FROM TIiE STATE OF CAUFORNIA
City Manager, John Goss, presented the staff report using overheads. The net loss projected from the State
budget cut was $540,000. If the voters did not extend the 1/2 cent sales tax in November, then it became
.2{)b-t
Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 5
$709,000. He was recommending a combination of some slight revenue adjustments as well as reductions
in the budget itself amounting to $540,000. If the voters did not extend the 112 cent sales tax, he would
come back to Council at that time. The results of the State budget cuts had done the following: 1) it would
mean that the sales tax would go up slightly based on receiving the 1/2 cent sales tax for 6 months; 2)
property tax would go down from $9 million to approximately $7.7 million; 3) motor vehicle in-lieu tax
would go up; and 4) the net result would mean a $540,000 reduction. He recommended Council adopt the
budget as recommended, remove the hiring freeze, and give consideration to the three reclassifications
presented in the report.
Councilman Rindone stated he had a concern regarding the potential adjustment of the $540,000, there was
$132,000 of that from the Police Department which was in excess of 20 percent of the proposed cuts.
Although he went over the budget thoroughly, he was still concerned and felt it should be re-examined. He
asked staff to respond to the question that if the budget was in the neighborhood of $65-66,000 instead of
the $132,000 what the impact would be. He was specifically concerned about the cap on the overtime. No
on could predict what emergencies may occur.
Mr. Goss responded that when the reduction in the Police Department was presented to him, it was in the
amount of $171,000. He pared it down to $132,000.
Richard Emerson, Police Chief, stated all of the employees in the Police Department had been working hard
on the overtime. They had about a $350,000 shift in the overtime expenditures because of some increased
management of overtime. He had talked to the City Manager about the ability to adjust at the end of the
year if needed. If the $45,000 was added back into their budget, they would utilize it specifically to deal
with some of the proactive measures in the Police Department dealing with crime and quality of life. Also,
by adding additional officers, they would need some additional training. Probably the biggest savings from
last year was the way they presented the gang alternative program at the elementary schools. Previously,
it had been done on an overtime basis. However, last year, they attempted to use a light duty officer.
Because he had been injured, he could not do this. So they used one of their gang officers instead which
saved about $40,000. The monies could be used on overtime for off-duty personnel which would allow the
on-duty individuals to work on their specific programs. They had managed overtime very tightly; there may
be some changes in the MOU that may make some changes. He concluded by stating that if Council was
looking for one account which would be modified in their budget reductions, it would be the overtime
account.
Councilman Rindone stated he was uncomfortable with that area. The Chief and staff should be commended
for their judicious effort in the reduction and allocation of the work force. Yet, he did not feel Council
should tie their hands. The return of the $45,000 overtime, did not necessarily mean it would be spent.
He asked the Chief to explain the benefits of AIjis, another account which had been reduced.
Chief Emerson replied that AIjis was the Automated Regional Justice Information System. Each police
agency in San Diego County was involved in the joint powers agreement. It was the records management
system throughout the County. They had looked at the AIjis transactions and felt that they could make cuts
in that account. It would take them to the bare bones, but that was the impression they had that those
types of cuts needed to be made. The total cuts would be $2,500 in one account and about $12,500 in
another account.
Councilman Moore stated he was the representative on AIjis because it was a spin off of SANDAG. It was
a program which we needed. Membership was based on a set fee and the other cost was usage of the
computer time. What the Chief was doing was cutting down the usage of computer time.
Chief Emerson stated they were looking at doing some of the enteting of the data on off-peak hours because
there was a substantial reduction. There were some employee concerns about working at midnight, but they
felt it would be better to do that than get into personnel layoffs. San Diego Processing agreed they needed
to utilize batch loading and were redesigning the system.
.,2l)b'/
Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 6
Councilman Rindone stated that when you look at restoring something, you had to look at reducing
something to keep the budget in balance. He stated there were some positions, such as a vacant clerical
position in Administration at a salary of $26,900; a Plans Checker in Building and Housing frozen from 6
months to 12 months with a savings of $48,400; possible adjustment or delay in the Mainframe Computer
Programmer for 6 months for another $7,500 savings; another $28,600 savings for not filling for 9 months
the Engineering Aide. Although it was not the City Council's responsibility to dot the "i" and cross the "t"
since it should be the responsibility of the City Manager, he was proposing the budget be balanced.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Nancy Bizzari, 416 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, was not present when called to the podium.
. Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, felt there should be more patrol cars in the
vicinity of the Chula Vista Shopping Center. More of the unmarked police cars should be used as marked
patrol cars for patrolling in the City. He wanted to know what the City was acquiring through the asset
seizure funds.
City Manager Goss replied that the City received about $40,000 each year in asset seizure
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: (Rindone) to approve Resolution 17163 (adoption of the amended 1993-94 budget) and the
elimination of the hiring freeze with one amendment to include instead of a $132,000 cut in the Police
Department budget, it would be only $72,000 (returning the previously anticipated cut of $60,000 for the
police overtime and two accounts for AIjis) and that the City Manager be given discretion for balancing the
$60,000 in any of the other ways he had suggested or as he felt appropriate.
Mayor Nader asked if it could be put in the form of an amendment rather than a motion to adopt the
resolution with that amendment. There could be other amendments to consider as well.
Councilman Rindone had no problem with that.
Councilman Fox stated he would second the motion with the understanding that the three goals Council had
reaffirmed would also be kept in mind when the City Manager used his discretion.
MS (RindoneIFox) to restore the $60,000 to the Police Department budget.
Mayor Nader asked if it was Councilman Rindone's intent that if the Police Chief was successful in
economizing in those areas during the coming fiscal year, funds would remain in his budget to use at his
discretion in other ways that would enhance public safety.
Councilman Rindone replied that hoped so because that would be a continuation of good management.
Councilman Moore stated that he did not like to tinker with the budget where you restore money or add
money and leave it up to the Department Head discretion. The City had a management team and it should
go through the management team, not individual department heads.
Mr. Goss stated those were estimates, but there were times where there were under estimates in some
accounts and overages in other accounts. There was flexibility to make adjustments during the course of
the year. If the Chief saved in overtime, but the AIjis costs went up, then the Manger's office would approve
a transfer of funds between accounts. It was done in the Operating and Maintenance accounts.
Mayor Nader stated the only area where he would add any funding was included in the motion on the floor.
There were a number of areas where funding should be cut or restricted, such as: freezing the Engineering
.2/J h ... r
Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 7
Supervisol)' position and the Administrative clerical position; further cuts in the Planning Department which
was included in his memo to Council last month; maintaining the freeze on reclassifications that was
enacted last month instead of repealing it as recommended by the City Manager; and, implementing a more
.extensive program of energy conservation similar to the one proposed in the Police Department.
Councilman Fox expressed that the $50,000 cut in the Planning Department could possibly have an effect
on the Youth Action Program.
Councilwoman Horton stated she would have a problem cutting $50,000 from the Planning budget.
Mr. Goss stated there was currently no vacancy for a Senior Civil Engineer as indicated in the staff report;
that was an error. There was a Senior Civil Engineer who was working on the Otay Ranch project and that
the position had to be revisited in terms of work load and whether it was going to continue to be filled as
the City started processing the Otay Ranch specific plans. There were several positions, including a clerical
position in Administration that was vacant which they had recommended be backfilled with part-time hours
for six months. It was suggested by Councilman Rindone that it be extended to twelve months. There was
also a clerical position in Finance and Public Works in that same categol)'.
Councilman Rindone responded that it would be at the City Manager's discretion urness there was a
consensus of the Council of some other areas that were currently being suggested for consideration which
may impact the necessity for that.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved Wlanimously.
Mayor Nader felt the $32,000 cut in Planning could be accomplished by cross training and consolidating
functions.
MS (Nader/Rindone) to add an additional $32,000 cut in the Planning Department.
Councilman Moore stated he could not support that. He did not know enough about the Planning
Department.
Councilman Fox felt he could not support the motion because the staff report stated that further reductions
in the Planning budget would impact services. One of the primal)' goals in dealing with the budget was that
it not impact service levels.
Mayor Nader responded that if these funds are deleted from the Planning Department budget, they are still
available for the Youth Action program. There was no possible impact to the Youth Action program from
this motion.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 with Fox, Horton, Moore opposed.
MSC (NaderlHorton) to freeze the Engineering Supervisor position and the one clerical poslOon in
Administration, keep the reclassification freeze, and direct the City Manager to institute an energy
conservation program throughout the City similar to the one proposed for the Police Department.
Mr. Goss stated he assumed the interpretation would be if any of the Engineering Supervisol)' positions
became vacant that they be frozen.
Mayor Nader stated that was correct.
COWlcilman Moore stated that if they cut out a Supervising Engineer and someone started doing his work,
and if that work was beyond what he was hired for, then you have to reclassify him. He felt Council was
tinkering with Administration and felt Council should not be doing that.
,).I)b -' 1
Minutes
July 13, 1993
Page 8
Mayor Nader felt differently because the State had chosen three years in a row steal money from the City,
and as policy makers they were within bounds and duties to give some direction to Administration.
Mayor Nader withdn!w the portion of his motion which dealt with the Engineering Supervisor.
Councilman Moore stated he still had a problem with the clerical and wanted to bifurcate that portion from
the motion.
PREVIOUS MOTION: (NaderlHorton) to freeze the one clerical position in Jldm;n;.tration. Motion carried
4-1 with Moore opposed.
PREVIOUS MOTION: (NaderlHorton) to direct the City Manager to institute an energy conservation program
throughout the City similar to the one proposed for the Police DepartmenL Approved unanimously.
PREVIOUS MOTION: (NaderlHorton) to keep the reclassification freeze. Approved 3-2 with Moore and
Rindone opposed.
RESOLUTION 17163, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the textwas waived.
passed and approved unanimously.
*****
The hour being past 10:30 p.m., the Council took the following vote: MSUC (Nader/Rindone) to complete
the public hearings, item 5c, oral communication, the Redevelopment Agency agenda, and the closed session
items and to continue the remaining agenda to July 20th.
,
*****
17. PUBUC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN SEWER SERVICE OiARGES - As
a member of the San Diego Area Wastewater Management District (SDAWMD), the City was required to
participate in its operations, maintenance, and upgrade program. Due to the increased cost of upgrading
regional wastewater transportation, treatment, and disposal, it was necessary to raise the sewer service
charges for Fiscal Year 1993/94. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
4/5th's vote required.
RESOLUTION 17164 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ON
SEWER SERVICE OiARGES AND TRANSFER OF $1,856,000 FROM FUND 222 TO FUND 225
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
. Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, urged Council to lower the rate for low income
people to about $4 to $6 per billing period instead of the $11 per month. He stated the sewer fund should
be a bank to fund other City services such as voice mail. He felt that if there were reserves, it should be
used to lower fees.
MSC (Nader;Moore) to continue the public hearing to July 20, 1993. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Horton
absent from the dias.
18. PUBUC HEARING CITY OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10 FOR FISCAl. YEAR
1993/94 - Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, the public hearing for Open Space Maintenance
District 10 has been separated due to conflict of interest. In accordance with the City Municipal Code
Section 17.07, the City Engineer prepared reports on the spread of assessments for the Open Space Districts.
The reports were accepted, and the required public hearings were set by Council at their meetings of
,2~b-11J
MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1993
FROM
Council member Bob Fox i\ I
Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manager ty)j~~
~/
TO
SUBJECT
Reconsideration of Three Requests for Reclassifications Frozen at the
Adoption of the FY 93/94 Budget
Following is a response to your request for information regarding reclassification of Senior
Accounting Office Assistant, Administrative Analyst II and Associate Planner.
Included in the proposed FY 93/94 budget were three position reclasses recommended for
approval. During budget deliberations, Council directed that a freeze be placed on all
reclassifications of positions to new designations with higher salaries. When the State budget
was finally adopted, staff presented recommended budget cuts at theJuly 13th Council
meeting. In that report, it was requested at that time that Council reconsider the reclasses
which were frozen in the adopted budget.
As additional background, position reclasses are approved only through the budget process.
During the budget process, numerous requests are made by departments. Of these, only
three were recommended to Council for approval in FY 93/94. A reclassification involves
several steps prior to recommended approval by Council.
~ First a department must fill out a request for position reclassification for the
Personnel Department which includes a detailed listing of
knowledge/skills/abilities required of the position in question as well as a
detailed listing of actual job duties.
~ The Personnel Department completes an independent position reclassification
study on each of these requests and makes recommendations to the City
Manager.
~ During review of the budget, budget staff extensively analyze the
reclassi fication requests. In addition to taking into account the Personnel
Department's recommendation, budget staff also ensure that higher level duties
could not be shifted to other positions, accomplishing the same goal less
expensively. Budget staff recommendations are then presented to the City
Manager.
The final decision on recommendations to the Council, however, rests with the City
Manager, taking into account the analysis of the Personnel Department as well as budget
staff. There have been cases whereby the Personnel Department has evaluated a position and
2{) b ~ II
Council member Bob Fox
July 27, 1993
Page 2
recommended a reclassification, and the City Manager has not recommended the
reclassification to Council because additional information detailing other options or
alternatives was realized.
In the case of the three reclassifications which you have asked to reconsider, each has been
through this very strenuous approval process and determined by staff to be appropriate to be
placed at the higher classification.
Some highlights on each of these three positions are listed below. The discussion focuses on
the potential impacts of not approving the reclassifications. If the reclasses are not approved,
staff will certainly continue to attempt to address the anticipated problems highlighted below
in some other way. However, staff is very concerned about these potential impacts, and that
is why these three reclasses were recommended.
1. Sr. Accounting Office Assistant to Collections Supervisor (Finance Department)
Due to an effort to centralize and enhance collections of revenues due the City and
enactment of AB 408 the Revenue and Recovery Division has taken on numerous
responsibilities, implemented many new programs and eliminated many clerical tasks
due to automation and the use of volunteers. As a result, the incumbent has and will
continue to perform duties far exceeding the level of a Sr. Accounting Office
Assistant. If the reclassification is not approved, the position will have to be
restructured to lower the knowledge/skills/abilities to meet the current classification.
This would result in the following impacts:
" Reduce receivables collected by the City which were included in the FY 1993-
94 adopted budget; thus reducing revenue estimates by at least $60,000.
>> Necessitate that administrative hearings (required by AB 408) be contracted
out and that additional overtime be paid costing an estimated $10,240, as
opposed to utilizing law school volunteers coordinated by in-house staff which
would probably cost between $0-1,500.
>> Shift substantial work to operating departments which has recently been more
appropriately absorbed by the Finance Department in the areas of billings,
outstanding debt collection, payment schedule negotiation, bad check
collection, etc.
>> Significantly delay research and development of new centralized collection
efforts which are currently targeted such as, collection of non-returned library
books (current loss of $38,000 annually) and review of current asset seizure
procedures to ensure maximization of revenues.
cWb~)-A
Council member Bob Fox
July 27, 1993
Page 3
>> Reduce use of volunteers, interns, and ROP workers due to unavailability of
staff to schedule and supervise.
>> Reduce ability to obtain contracts with other cities to provide them with
collection services, thereby lowering our fixed costs.
>> Reduce ability to perform more in-house collection activities and only contract
out for services at the most effective point in the collections process. Earlier
use of expensive attorneys and collection agencies would increase the cost of
the collections process.
2. Administrative Analyst II to Sr. Management Analyst to be effective January I, 1994
(Management and Information Services)
Due to ongoing efforts to calculate program and service costs as accurately as
possible, many new highly technical tasks are now conducted on an annual basis. If
the reclassification is not approved, the position will have to be restructured, resulting
in the following impacts:
>> City's indirect cost allocation plan would not be completed annually. Annual
adjustments result in approximately $100,000 of revenue annually, and ensure
City's fees are set legally and appropriately. This could be done by Special
Projects Manager or Revenue Manager but would necessitate they delay other
revenue generation projects.
>> Reduction in monitoring of project accounting and delay in developing
program changes which will provide department and City management with
ability to see what various programs and tasks cost and reallocate resources or
adjust procedures accordingly.
>> Less efficient monitoring of time spent working on non-general fund projects
to ensure reimbursements are fully realized. This monitoring saves over
$300,000 annually in lost reimbursements.
>> Reduced assistance to departments in conducting cost benefit analysis of
contract versus in-house for various functions.
>> Master Fee Schedule will be updated less frequently.
)) Reduction in assistance to Economic Development division with current
priority projects.
>> Reduction in other revenue/efficiency related responsibilities including
cost/benefit analyses, staffing studies, establishment of city special events
policy.
3. Associate Planner to Senior Planner (Planning Department)
JjJb ~ U
Council member Bob Fox
July 27, 1993
Page 4
>> Establishment of official design review coordinator, thereby eliminating
overtime pay.
>> Would be a permanent position requiring an architect's license.
>> Provide improved streamlining and increased quality of staff support to Design
Review Committee, and elimination and reduction of architectural consultant
servIces.
>> Provide assistance and design expertise to City projects.
>> Provide review/reports on construction defects of City projects.
Civil Service Implications of not implementing reclassifications
Within the general provisions section of the Civil Service Rules is a discussion of revisions
to the classification plan. "The Director of Personnel shall provide for the reallocation of
any position from one class to another class whenever a change in duties and responsibilities
of such position makes the class to which the position was previously allocated no longer
applicable." In each of these circumstances, the Personnel Department has already
determined that the duties and responsibilities are more appropriate at the higher level
classifications. Any continuation of working these individuals at the higher level of duties
would be in violation of our Civil Service Rules.
B:\lDHI\REClA$S
;2iJb-)i
~I f.t..
-~-
.-
- -
Sid Morris
~st. City Manager
City Manager's Office
691-5031
01Y Of
OiUlA VISTA
Date: 7' 27. CJ.3
To: ~b.- 8~
fie- C1a~ ~
'If-l0 .L{a<U/ ~;~ 0a1fi-
JlU) t ff<-i bu,;u ~,y;.t.d.z.d ~v cAL
,/I, Adl q/J .
)'-'t:'l&df~ ~.J ~V <lite ~_A a1~
aw:#1f aU ~ud (ff>~ .y:a1
c."'&U'lv:J qcpztJ-L,'(ll. ~..(.,. .xJ.i/Y'~V jJ-fa.n1tL"U
ai1t.R.o.c'ff- JfIA.~ ~. A0 ~.d.."
,./'.
~ob ~)-->
..--.-,
City of Chura Vista
.
Class Specification
SEPTEMBER 1991
~ENIOR ACCOUNTI.NG OFFICE ASSISTANT
DEFINmON
Vnder general supervision, In a centralized accounting setting, provides supervision and
training to one or a small group of accounting office assistants and provides difficult or
specialized financial, accounting or statistical office support In the Finance Department;
performs related work as assigned.
9LASS CHARACTERISTICS
This Is the working supervisor in the accounting office support series, with responsibility
for providing direction to a group of accounting offica assistants performing similar work.
This is a line supervisory class in that evaluation of employees Is assigned to this level.
.
PRINCIPAL DUTIES (JIIustrativl! Only) .
Provides supervision, training and work review to a small group -of accounting office
assistants; organizes work, sets priorities and follows up to ensure coordination and
completion of assigned work; performs difficult or complex accounting or financial office
support work in such areas as accounts receivable and payable; reviews and reconciles
varied reports, computer output and related data; researches and assembles Information
from a variety of sources for the completion of forms or the preparation of reports; makes
complex arithmetic or statistical calculations; provides information to the public or to City
staff that may require the use of judgement and the Interpretation of policies, rules or
procedures; may provide lead direction or assist In enforcement of the municipal business
license ordinance; process business license applications, Issue business licenses,
prepare related business license reports; perform field work to Insure that all businesses
are licensed, follow up delinquent licenses and applications, coordinate with other city
departments, prepares actions for small claims court and gives testimony In court; takes
appropriate action to collect "Non-sufficient Funds" checks, follow up and update "NSF"
checks listing to avoid accepting bad checks; follow polices and procedures to minimize
uncollectible funds; performs a variety of general office support work such as organizing
and maintaining various files, typing correspondence, reports, forms and specialized
documents, and proofreading and checking materials for accuracy, completeness and
compliance with departmental policies and regulations; enters and retrieves data from an
on-line or personal computer systems and uses such technology to produce reports;
operates standard office equipment; and other duties as assigned.
dO}; -/~
..
.
..
." .
CIT.y OF CIfUlA VISTA
Class Specification
7/9/80
Def;niUon
ADMINISTRATIVE ArlALYST Il
;205'"3
Under general supervision, to perform ~rofessiona1 administrative
work in the areas of municipal management, budget and operations; and to.
do related work as required.
*Examoles of Typical Duties
PerfOrMs ir.dependent professi~nal ~nd technical public administration
duties in all assigned areas of the administrative program; assists with
organization, budget, and operations activities; performs manaQement studies
and makes reports and recommendations; reviews budget estimates and requests;
assists in budget preparation; assists in analyzing revenue sources; studies
space allocations and manpower utilization; prepares manuals and forms;
analyzes and reCommends improved methods and procecures; prepares, imo1ements,
and administers special programs and procedures; provides advice and assis-
tance to departments regarding administrative practices; negotiates and
administers agreements with outside consultants or contractors; works with
citizens' groups and commissions: conducts special studies and assionments;
prepares reports and correspondence; may plan and oversee the work of others.
**Desirab1e Qualifications
Training and Experience - Any combination equivalent to graduation from
college 1n public or buslness administration or a related field and one year
of exoerience in profeSSional administrative work of acceptable level and
qual ity.
Skills, and Abilities - Knowledge of public administration
polic es, pract1ces, an proce ures; amiliarity with bUdget and revenue
applications; superior ability in oral and written expression and in the
application of business and statistical research and reporting techniques;
above-averaQe analytical ability; personality, attitudes and temoerament
necessary for effective communication and the maintenance of effective
~~rking relations with all levels of the staff, other City employees.
other governmental agencies, and the public: ability to schedule and
oversee the work of others.
*ThPica1 Duties are examples of duties performed by employees in this class.
T e list may not include all required duties, nor are all listed tasks nec-
essarily performed by everyone in this class.
**Desirable Qualifications are a Quide for determining the education, training,
exoprience, srecial skills, and/or licpnses ~Ihich may be renuired for emolov-
ment in the class. These are re-evaluated each time an examination is ooened.
?t76 - /7
c:>< .
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Class Specification
March, 1991
SENIOR PLANNER
Definition
Under general direction, to perform more difficult professional
planning work: to perform research, analysis and technical work
in the development of planning projects and related planning
activities: supervise subordinates: and do related work as
required.
*Examoles of Tvoical Duties
Coordinates and performs complex planning research projects
and investigations: performs highly technical research in zoning
changes, zoning variances, conditional use permits, and other
planning matters including population, housing, transportation,
land use, and economic studies: coordinates and supervises field
analysis and studies of re-zoning and variance requests: new
ordinances and resolutions: participates in reviews and revisions
to the general plan: supervises dispensing of public information
by subordinates: prepares and reviews environmental documents and
reports: assists in the training of new personnel: compiles and
presents reports and makes recommendations on a wide variety of
planning subjects including zoning changes and subdivision maps:
attends meetings of the Planning commission and provides technical
support to various agencies and community groups as required:
serves as project leader on complex departmental assignments and
projects.
**Desirable Oualifications
Trainina and Exoerience - Any combination equivalent to
graduation from college in planning or a closely related field, and
four years of professional experience in city and regional planning
work of acceptable level and quality. A Masters Degree may be
substituted for one year of experience.
;){}b /1 J{
CITY OF CIIULA VISTA
Class Specif.ication
liI/H',
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Definition
_ -Under .direction,to perfonn difficult professional planning \/Ork; to
perfonn research, analysis, and technical work in. the development of
planning projects and related planning activities; and to do related Itork
as requi red.
* Examples of Typical Duties
Perfonns various planning research projects and investigations;
perfonns the more technical research on zone changes, zone variances,
conditional use pennits, and other planning matters including population,
housing, transportation, land use, and economics studies; participates in
and analyzes field studies of rezoning and variance requests; collects,
analyzes, and presents data; prepares ordinance revi si ons, nelt ordinances
and resolutions; participates in the review and revision of the general
plan; provides public information and has senior authority over lower-level
personnel in dispensing infonnation to the public; may prepare and review
environmental documents; may assist in the training of new personnel;
presents reports and may make recommendations on a wide variety of planning
subjects i ncl uding zone changes and subdivi si on maps; attends meeti ngs of
the Planning Commission, various agencies and community groups as required;
serves as lead person on various projects.
** Desirable Qualifications
Training and Experience - Any combination equivalent to graduation
from college in planning or a closely related field, and three years of
professional experience in city and regional planning work of acceptable
level and quality. A Masters Degree may be substituted for one year of
experience.
Knowledges, Skills, and Abilities - Knowledge of the principles and
practices of local planning, environmental law, and zoning; knowledge of
state and local laws and regulations governing planning and zoning;
knowledge of research methods as applied to the collection, tabulation and
analysis of statistics affecting public planning; knowledge of engineering
drawing and topographic mapping; ability to collect, tabulate, and compute
planning statistics; ability to organize and conduct various planning
research studies; ability to maintain records and prepare reports; ability
to coordinate the work of technical and clerical personnal;, ability to
make oral presentations at various public meetings; abil i ty to establ ish
and maintain effective working relationships with others.
* TJpical Duties are examples of duties perfonned by employees in this
class. The list may not include JIll required duties, nor are all listed
tasks necessarily perfonned by everyone in this class.
** Desirable Qualifications are a guide for detennining the education,
training, experience, special skills, and/or licenses which may be required
for employment in the class. These are re-evaluated each time an
examination is opened.
~i/b ---/ I
wpr. 031 IiK